LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


VIEWS 


OF 


AN  EX-PRESIDENT 


BY 

BENJAMIN  HARRISON 


BEING  HIS  ADDRESSES  AND  WRITINGS  ON  SUBJECTS 

OF  PUBLIC  INTEREST  SINCE  THE  CLOSE  OF 

HIS  ADMINISTRATION  AS  PRESIDENT 

OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


COMPILED  BY 

MARY  LORD  HARRISON 


INDIANAPOLIS 

THE  BOWEN-MERRILL  COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS 


LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 


COPYRIGHT,    1901 
THE  BOWEN-MERRILL  COMPANY 


VIEWS  OF 
AN  EX-PRESIDENT 


CONTENTS 


PART  I 

THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONSTITUTION 

Introductory  lecture,  Stanford  University  1 

THE  COLONIAL  CHARTERS 

Second  lecture,  Stanford  University  30 

LEGAL  ASPECTS  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN  THE  AMEBI- 
CAN  COLONIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN 
Third  lecture,  Stanford  University  62 

EARLY  ATTEMPTS  AT  UNION  AND  THE  UNION  DE  FACTO 

Fourth  lecture,  Stanford  University  92 

THE  CONFEDERATION 

Fifth  lecture,  Stanford  University  124 

THE  INSTITUTION  OF  STATE  GOVERNMENTS 

Sixth  lecture,  Stanford  University  165 

THE  STATUS  OF  ANNEXED  TERRITOBY  AND  OF  ITS  FBEB  CIVIL 
IZED  INHABITANTS 
Lecture  delivered  at  University  of  Michigan  185  *- 

MUSINGS  ON  CURRENT  TOPICS — FIBST  PAPEB 

North  American  Review  222    - 

MUSINGS  ON  CURRENT  TOPICS — SECOND  PAPEB 

North  American  Review  245  - 


CONTENTS 

PART  II 

SOME  HINDRANCES  TO  LAW  REFORMS 

At  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor  273 

ILLINOIS  INHERITANCE  TAX  CASES 

General  Harrison's  last  argument  before  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  298 

THE  OBLIGATIONS  OF  WEALTH 

Delivered  before  the  Union  League  Club,  Chicago        331 

ON  RETURNING  FROM  WASHINGTON 

An  address  delivered  at  State  House,  Indianapolis        358 

To  THE  GRAND  ARMY  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 

Tomlinson  Hall,  Indianapolis  361 

MILITARY  INSTRUCTION  IN  THE  SCHOOLS  AND  COLLEGES 

The  Century  Magazine  367 

AT  THE  BANQUET  OF  THE  NEW  ENGLAND  SOCIETY  OF  PENN 
SYLVANIA 
Continental  Hotel,  Philadelphia  371 

FOUNDERS'  DAY  AT  STANFORD  UNIVERSITY 

First  memorial  exercises  held  at  the  University          376 

IN  PRESENTING  MR.  MCKINLEY 

Tomlinson  Hall,  Indianapolis  382 

THE  GREAT  MASS  MEETING 

Carnegie  Hall,  New  York  388 

A  TALK  ABOUT  THE  LITTLE  ONES 

The  Interior,  Chicago  419 

AT  THE  REPUBLICAN  RATIFICATION  MEETING 

Carnegie  Hall,  New  York  426 

COMPULSORY  DISHONESTY 

The  Forum  454 


CONTENTS 

"'No  MEAN  CITY" 

At  the  Commercial  Club,  Indianapolis  466 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 

Marquette  Club,  Chicago  472 

AT  THE  BANQUET  OF  THE  UNION  LEAGUE  CLUB 

Chicago  479 

PRESENTATION  OF  FLAG  TO  BATTERY  A 

Camp  Mount,  Indianapolis  482    „ 

AT  THE  BANQUET  OF  THE  SOCIETY  OF  THE  CINCINNATI 

Asbury  Park,  New  Jersey  486  - 

IN  BEHALF  OF  THE  RED  CROSS  SOCIETY 

Long  Branch,  New  Jersey  488    ^ 

AT  THE  BANQUET  OF  THE  AMERICAN  CHAMBEB  OF  COMMERCE 
Paris,  France  490 

OPENING  ADDRESS  AS  HONORARY  CHAIRMAN 

At  the  Ecumenical  Missionary  Conference  497 

BESPONSE  TO  WELCOME  OF  PRESIDENT  MCKINLEY  AND  GOV 
ERNOR  ROOSEVELT 

At  the  Ecumenical  Missionary  Conference  505 

FAREWELL  ADDRESS 

At  the  Ecumenical  Missionary  Conference  511 

As  PRESIDING  OFFICER  AT  INDIANAPOLIS  RAILROAD  CHRISTIAN 
ASSOCIATION  ANNIVERSARY 

Indianapolis  518 

<(HAIL  COLUMBIA" 

At  the  Columbia  Club  banquet,  Indianapolis  521 


PART  ONE 


THE  DEVELOPMENT   OF  THE  NATIONAL 
CONSTITUTION 

INTRODUCTORY   LECTURE 
Delivered  at.  Stanford  University,  March  6,  1894 

When  I  yielded  to  the  request  of  Governor  Stan 
ford  and  consented  to  deliver  some  lectures  before 
the  students  of  this  university,  I  confidently  expect 
ed  that  he  would  be  here  to  give  me  that  stimulus 
and  encouragement  which  a  genial  and  familiar 
face,  reflecting  a  friendly  approval  that  does  not 
wait  upon  performance,  affords  to  one  who  enters 
upon  an  unaccustomed  work.  As  we  shall,  on  the 
ninth  instant,  observe  the  anniversary  of  his  birth,  I 
will  reserve  for  that  occasion  my  tribute  to  the  vir 
tues  of  a  friend  whose  death  I  now  first  realize, 
because  he  is  not  here. 

I  am  glad  to  have  even  so  slight  and  casual  a 
part  as  that  of  a  non-resident  lecturer  in  the  work 
of  this  young  but  already  great  university.  If 
my  presence  is  only  occasional,  and  my  contact 
with  these  eager  minds  and  generous  hearts  less 

i 


2  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

near  and  constant  than  I  could  wish,  I  must  the 
more  be  careful  that  whatever  direction  I  may 
give  to  your  thoughts  and  whatever  impulses  I 
may  kindle  in  your  hearts  shall  be  true  and  ele 
vating — though  they  be  small. 

The  lectures  which  I  contemplate  will  be  rather 
popular  than  technical — especially  while  we  have 
under  consideration  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  history  of  its  development  and 
adoption. 

If  the  national  constitution  were  in  fact  what 
Mr.  Gladstone  described  it  to  be — "the  most  won 
derful  work  ever  struck  off  at  a  given  time  by 
the  brain  and  purpose  of  man," — the  work  of  the 
commentator  would  be  abbreviated,  if  not  simpli 
fied.  He  would  not  need  to  go  back.  It  was, 
however,  not  a  work  struck  off  at  a  given  time;  but, 
in  a  strong  sense,  a  development — the  ripe  fruit  of 
experience,  and  not  a  discovery,  not  a  revelation. 
The  harmonious  adjustment  and  definition  of  the 
powers  of  the  national  and  of  the  state  governments 
was  more  nearly  than  anything  else  original  and 
constructive  work.  As  a  whole  it  is,  perhaps,  more 
nearly,  though  not  altogether,  what  Mr.  Glad 
stone  described  the  British  constitution  to  be,  "an 
organism  which  has  proceeded  from  progressive 
history."  This  being  true,  we  can  not  rightly  es 
timate  the  merits  of  its  framers,  nor  rightly  un 
derstand  its  articles  without  some  knowledge  of 


THE    NATIONAL    CONSTITUTION  3 

the  historical  progression  which  culminated  in  this 
admirable  and  enduring  civil  organism.  I  can  not, 
however,  in  these  preliminary  lectures,  do  more 
than  give  you  a  hasty  and  not  very  closely 
connected  outline  of  those  events  and  civil  conten 
tions  which,  beginning  in  old  England,  resulted 
first  in  the  establishment  of  popular  governments 
in  the  colonies  and  states  and  finally  spread  over 
these  necessary  and  inestimable  local  systems  a  na 
tional  popular  government — supreme  in  all  things 
affecting  the  common  interests  of  all  the  people. 

My  aim  is  not  so  much  to  make  lawyers  as  to 
promote  a  broad  and  intelligent  American  citizen 
ship.  Our  civil  institutions  are  safe  only  while 
in  the  keeping  of  a  generation  that  loves  them; 
and  the  love  of  institutions — however  it  may  be 
with  another  sort — must  be  educated.  We  guard 
and  keep  our  treasures — that  which  is  not  valued 
we  suffer  others  to  take  without  resistance. 

It  will  be  my  purpose  to  show  you  the  beauty, 
strength  and  adaptation  of  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  thereby  to  make  your  love  of 
our  institutions  deeper  and  more  intelligent.  I 
will  not  ask  you  to  love  everything  that  is  Ameri 
can;  but  I  will  ask  you  to  shun  the  example  of 
those  who  love  anything  for  no  better  reason  than 
that  it  is  not  American.  American  history  and  biog 
raphy  have  had  a  great  revival  in  these  centennial 
years,  and  every  young  American  should  eagerly 


4  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

avail  himself  of  his  improved  opportunities  to  be 
come  acquainted,  not  only  with  the  great  events  in 
our  history,  and  with  our  great  men,  but  with  the 
connecting  chains  of  small  events  and  with  the 
characteristics  and  virtues  of  the  inconspicuous  but 
sturdy  people.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  describe 
what  an  alliterative  friend  of  mine  called  the  "pre 
natal  prophecy  and  preparation"  of  our  country. 
A  study  of  English  history  and  of  the  English  con 
stitution  will  greatly  aid  your  understanding  of 
our  colonial  history  and  of  the  development  of 
our  national  and  state  constitutions;  but  I  can 
not  go  very  far  into  that  field.  The  English  con 
stitution  is  not,  as  you  know,  like  ours,  a  written 
instrument,  containing  a  formulated  system  of  fun 
damental  law,  of  permanent  and  paramount  obli 
gation,  apportioning  the  powers  of  government  and 
providing  particular  methods  by  which  amend 
ments  may  be  added.  England  has  no  such  writ 
ten  document.  The  word  "constitution"  is  there 
used  in  its  wider  sense,  to  indicate  a  civil  sys 
tem  and  order  defined  partly  by  writings,  as  the 
Magna  Charta,  but  chiefly  by  long-established 
usage,  and  recognized  precedents.  The  limitations 
of  the  powers  of  the  sovereign,  and  the  rights  of 
the  people  are,  however,  pretty  well  defined,  and 
very  jealously  guarded,  though  they  are  without 
codification.  We  have  become  so  accustomed  to 
a  book — to  article  and  section — that  we  have  all 


THE    NATIONAL    CONSTITUTION  5 

but  lost  the  wider  and  primitive  meaning  of  the 
word  "constitution"  as  applied  to  a  state.  It  would 
be  impossible,  I  suppose,  for  a  convention  of  the 
publicists  and  statesmen  of  England  to  codify  the 
English  constitution  to  the  acceptance  of  the  crown 
and  of  the  commons.  The  powers  of  the  crown, 
though  they  now  give  little  trouble  in  practical  ad 
ministration,  are  hardly  capable  of  an  acceptable 
definition.  The  codifiers  would  be  compelled,  I  sup 
pose,  to  write  that  the  prime  minister  is  appointed 
by  the  crown,  if  they  followed  the  letter;  but  if 
they  recorded  the  fact,  they  would  write  that  he  is 
chosen  by  the  majority  in  the  house  of  commons. 
And  if  they  should  attempt  to  define  the  method 
of  expressing  that  choice,  they  would  find  it  im 
possible  to  be  precise — for  the  party  leader,  who 
must  be  prime  minister,  is  not  selected  by  ballot. 

We  have  just  now  an  illustration  of  what  I 
have  said.  Mr.  Gladstone  has  surrendered  the 
privy  seal  and  his  position  as  prime  minister  in 
the  English  cabinet.  Lord  Rosebery  has  been 
called  to  take  his  place.  There  was  no  formal 
vote  in  the  house  of  commons.  He  was  pointed 
out  as  the  most  conspicuous  and  acceptable  leader 
of  that  party,  after  Mr.  Gladstone;  and  so  was 
chosen  by  the  queen.  Perhaps  she  would  have  pre 
ferred,  if  she  had  acted  with  absolute  freedom  in 
her  choice,  to  have  called  Lord  Salisbury  to  be 
prime  minister;  but  the  precedents  would  have 


6  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

been  so  rudely  violated  by  such  a  choice  that 
trouble  would  have  ensued  for  her.  Therefore, 
her  choice  in  the  selection  of  her  prime  minister  is 
not  free.  He  is  chosen,  as  I  have  said,  rather  by 
the  assent — though  without  formal  expression — of 
the  majority  party  in  the  house  of  commons,  and 
holds  his  place,  as  you  know,  subject  to  be  sur 
rendered  whenever  a  majority  in  the  commons 
fails  to  sustain  any  measure  which  he  has  proposed. 
It  was  quite  impossible  to  organize  the  Amer 
ican  Union  without  a  written  constitution.  Eng 
land  has  been  described  as 

"A  land  of  just  and  old  renown. 
Where  freedom  broadens  slowty  down, 
From  precedent  to  precedent." 

But  the  organization  of  the  great  republic  was 
a  work  of  exigency.  When  government  by  the 
king  and  the  parliament  was  overthrown,  and  the 
sovereign  power  seized  by  the  people,  bills  of 
rights,  an  apportionment  of  the  powers  of  gov 
ernment  between  designated  officers,  and  popular 
elections,  had  all  to  be  put  upon  a  defined  and  per 
manent  basis.  The  colonial  charters  had  familiar 
ized  the  people  with  the  idea  of  written  civil 
compacts  and  guaranties;  and  the  frequent  inva 
sions  of  their  charter  rights  by  the  king  and  his 
governors  had  taught  them  the  value,  nay  the 
necessity,  of  strict  written  limitations  of  the  pow- 


THE   NATIONAL   CONSTITUTION  7 

ers  of  public  officers:  Precedents  had  been  denied 
or  distinguished — there  was  need  of  a  book.  And, 
if  it  was  reasonable  and  necessary  that  the  colo 
nies,  in  becoming  states,  should  substitute  writ 
ten  constitutions  for  the  old  charters,  much  more 
was  a  written  constitution  inherent  in  the  propo 
sition  to  form  a  permanent  union  of  the  states. 
The  broader  freedom  and  the  new  civil  organiza 
tion  could  not  wait  to  be  fully  defined  by  prece 
dents — a  declaration  and  a  constitution  were  de 
manded. 

The  transition  from  colony  to  state  was  not 
difficult,  nor  very  radical  in  form.  Little  change 
even  in  the  official  nomenclature  was  involved. 
There  were  still  governors,  councils  or  senates, 
assemblies,  judges  and  sheriffs.  But  none  were  any 
longer  such  by  the  gracious  designation  of  His 
Majesty,  and  bound  by  oath  to  his  service,  but 
by  the  free  choice  of  the  freemen  of  the  common 
wealth,  whose  servants  they  were.  The  powers 
of  the  legislatures  were  merely  enlarged  to  in 
clude  some  powers  before  exercised  or  claimed 
by  the  British  parliament.  The  revolution  was,  in 
the  states,  chiefly  in  the  source  of  the  governing 
powers.  But  the  institution  of  a  national  govern 
ment  was,  both  in  form  and  substance,  more  a 
work  of  construction;  and  the  difficulty  and  deli 
cacy  of  the  task  can  not  be  overestimated. 

The  national  union,  under  the  constitution,  was 


8  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

freely  instituted  in  one  sense;  but  in  another  sense, 
and  very  truly,  it  was  the  product  of  coercion 
— the  imperious  coercion  of  conditions.  Not  only 
the  guiding,  but  the  compelling  hand  of  Provi 
dence  was  needed.  Every  other  way  had  to  be 
closed  up.  The  selfishness,  the  petty  jealousies,  the 
baseless  forebodings,  that  opposed,  delayed  and  al 
most  defeated  the  movement  for  an  adequate  gen 
eral  government,  have  saved  the  men  of  that  gen 
eration  from  deification,  and  have  established  the 
legitimacy  of  the  statesmen  of  our  time. 

The  declaration  of  independence  and  the  national 
constitution  will  hold  their  pre-eminence  among  the 
notable  and  influential  acts  in  human  history,  and 
the  men  who  framed  and  promulgated  them  will 
have  increasing  estimation  and  respect.  But  George 
Buchanan,  and  other  prophets  of  liberty,  had  already 
announced  the  doctrine  that  the  people  were  the  ul 
timate  source  of  the  magistrate's  power,  and  that 
the  state  was  instituted  for  their  good.  Freedom 
of  conscience  and  of  speech  and  the  right  of  the 
individual  to  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  were  discov 
ered  truths;  but  they  were  in  bonds  and  under  sus 
picion.  The  declaration  of  independence  eloquent 
ly  and  boldly  proclaimed  them.  The  new  philoso 
phy  of  human  freedom  was  to  be  made  a  fact;  a 
decree  to  take  the  place  of  philosophic  musings. 

When  we  come  to  consider  the  work  of  the  con 
stitutional  convention  we  shall  see  that  its  mem- 


THE   NATIONAL   CONSTITUTION  9 

bers  were  not  all  wise,  nor  any  always  wise — 
Washington  more  nearly  than  any  other.  The  in 
strument  was  a  compromise — the  product  of  the 
average  sense  of  the  convention.  Its  framers  found 
suggestions,  or  warnings,  in  the  feeble  and  tem 
porary  European  federations  that  preceded  our 
union;  but  there  was  among  these  no  satisfac 
tory  model.  What  was  to  be  provided  for,  and 
against,  was  mostly  suggested  by  the  experiences 
of  our  English  ancestors  and  by  our  own  expe 
riences  during  the  colonial  period  and  under  the 
articles  of  confederation. 

The  suggestion  of  a  union  of  the  colonies  for 
special  purposes  was  much  older  than  the  sugges 
tion  of  a  separation  from  the  crown.  A  brief 
study  of  these  experiences,  of  these  plans  of  fed 
eration,  of  the  colonial  charters,  and  of  the  first 
state  constitutions,  will  greatly  aid  us  in  under 
standing  the  national  constitution ;  for  it  was  large 
ly  evolved  from  them. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  were  a  na 
tion  before  they  were  aware  of  the  fact,  and  be 
fore  they  ratified  the  compact  of  government. 
There  were  diversities  of  race,  of  religion,  of  pur 
suit,  of  interests;  but  the  colonists  had  ceased  to 
be  Englishmen,  in  the  island  sense,  before  the 
new  oaths  of  allegiance  were  taken.  The  Ameri 
can  antedates  Concord  and  Lexington.  Neither 
Canada,  Florida,  nor  Louisiana  was  then  fitted 


IO  VIEWS    OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

for  partnership  in  an  American  federation.  The 
people  of  those  colonies  spoke  a  different  tongue; 
had  no  Magna  Charta  in  their  history,  and  had 
not  been  exercised  in  local  government  or  in  re 
ligious  freedom.  In  the  colonies  that  became 
American  states  the  English  language  was  the  lan 
guage  of  the  people,  and  the  non-English  admix 
ture  (the  Scotch,  Dutch  and  Huguenot)  was  of 
adaptable  stock  and  had,  before  the  revolution, 
been  pretty  thoroughly  assimilated.  All  these  were 
men  who  had  the  habit  of  thinking  for  themselves, 
and  who  valued  themselves — two  essential  traits  of 
a  republican  citizenship.  Not  parallels  of  latitude 
or  longitude,  not  the  channels  of  commerce,  not 
bays,  or  lakes,  or  rivers,  or  mountain  passes,  de 
termined  the  area  and  configuration  of  the  new  na 
tion.  The  lines  were  run  to  include  Anglo-Saxon 
freemen,  and  their  allies  from  France  and  Holland 
and  other  lands,  who  had  felt  the  hard  hand  of  oppres 
sions,  received  the  new  gospel  of  liberty,  and  now 
waited  in  faith  for  the  institution  of  a  free  state 
in  which  religion  should  be  a  matter  of  conscience 
and  not  of  legal  decree,  and  the  value  of  a  man  no 
longer  a  matter  of  ante-natal  assignment. 

Homogeneity  is  the  essential  of  a  true  com 
monwealth.  A  common  language,  common  hopes 
and  purposes  and  interests  are  its  progenitors.  I 
do  not  mean  that  all  hopes  and  purposes  and  in 
terests,  great  and  small,  must  run  in  parallels.  If 


THE    NATIONAL    CONSTITUTION  II 

that  were  the  condition  the  state  would  be  small 
and  its  people  few.  A  safe  and  enduring  state  is  as 
sured  when  the  large  dominating  hopes,  purposes, 
and  interests  of  its  people  are  common.  The  strug 
gle  between  the  small  local  interests  of  the  colonies 
and  the  large  and  enduring  benefits  of  a  union  was 
fierce  and  long,  and  to  human  thought  doubtful. 
Some  caught  the  glory  of  the  coming  day,  and  its 
light  made  them  blind  to  all  small  things;  and  for 
the  majority  there  was  the  inexorable  alternate — a 
union  with  national  powers,  or  the  speedy  resump 
tion  of  a  foreign  domination  made  more  cruel  by 
resistance. 

Some  of  the  influences  that  made  the  American 
citizen  should  have  our  attention.  And  first,  I  re 
mark,  that  if  a  free  government  is  to  have  stabil 
ity — endurance — its  citizens  must  give  their  love 
and  allegiance  to  institutions,  to  principles,  to  con 
stitutions,  rather  than  to  leaders.  And  herein  is 
very  largely  the  explanation  of  the  stability  of  the 
American  union,  its  comparative  exemption  from 
domestic  insurrections,  and  its  absolute  immunity 
from  successful  revolutions.  Our  Spanish-Ameri 
can  neighbors  on  the  south  are  lovers  of  liberty; 
they  are  brave  and  spirited;  but  they  have  not 
learned  to  value  civil  institutions.  They  follow  a 
cockade  rather  than  a  constitution;  and  the  sad  re 
sult  is  that  revolution  succeeds  revolution,  and  their 
great  resources  lie  undeveloped.  Not  so  the  An- 


'12  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

glo-Saxon;  for  here,  men  may  come  and  men  may 
go,  but  they  can  not  break  the  fast  hold  of  the  citi 
zen  upon  the  established  civil  status.  He  follows 
a  man  only  when  the  man  stands  for  a  cause;  and 
loyally  abides  the  judgment  of  appointed  tribunals. 
All  of  the  conditions  that  surrounded  the  Ameri 
can  colonists  tended  to  strengthen  this  inherited 
characteristic.  They  fled  from  oppressive  laws. 
They  came  not  to  crown  another  king,  but  to  build 
institutions:  Their  religion  tended  to  creeds,  and 
their  politics  to  codes;  and  a  sturdy  democracy 
characterized  both. 

Mr.  Grote  attributes  to  the  Greeks  that  love  for 
a  constitution  rather  than  a  ruler  which  is  char 
acteristic  of  the  American.  He  says: 

"But  in  the  mind  of  every  man,  some  determin 
ing  rule  or  system — something  like  what  in  mod 
ern  times  is  called  a  constitution — was  indispensable 
to  any  government  entitled  to  be  called  legitimate, 
or  capable  of  creating  in  the  mind  of  a  Greek  a 
feeling  of  moral  obligation  to  obey  it.  The  func 
tionaries  who  exercised  authority  under  it  might 
be  more  or  less  competent  or  popular;  but  his  per 
sonal  feelings  toward  them  were  commonly  lost  in 
his  attachment  or  aversion  to  the  general  sys 
tem." 

And  Joseph  Warren,  in  his  Boston  oration,  in 
March,  1772,  said:  "So  long  as  this  noble  attach 
ment  to  a  constitution  founded  on  free  and  benev- 


THE    NATIONAL    CONSTITUTION  13 

olent   principles    exists    in    full   vigor   in    any   state, 
that  state  must  be  flourishing  and  happy/' 

The  religious  faith  and  practices  of  the  people 
also  exercised  a  strong  influence  in  developing  the 
American  love  of  institutions,  and  in  freeing  men 
from  subserviency  to  leaders.  The  pastor  was  given 
great  deference,  even  reverence;  but  only  as  the  ex 
pounder  of  the  written  Word — the  Word  and  the 
Church  were  before  him  and  would  be  after  him, 
and  only  to  them  was  allegiance  given.  In  the 
New  England  colonies  this  influence  was  domi 
nant.  Christ  individualized  men  and  endowed 
them.  He  introduced  a  new  standard  of  valua 
tion.  That  every  man  is  possessed  of  an  immortal 
spirit  of  equal  value  in  the  sight  of  God,  is  a  lev 
eling  doctrine  as  well  as  an  elevating  one.  Caesar 
was  to  have  the  things  that  are  Caesars;  but  the 
limitations  were  very  strict — there  were  things  that 
could  not  be  rendered  to  Caesar.  The  humblest  of 
the  king's  subjects  was  a  brother  to  be  loved  as 
himself.  A  king  was  a  servant.  The  state  bore 
the  sword  for  the  defense  of  innocence.  The  ruler 
must  answer  to  the  Great  King.  So  the  divine  right 
of  kings  became  the  divine  obligation  of  kings. 
The  man  for  whom  the  Son  of  God  died  upon  the 
cross,  for  whom  the  material  universe  had  been 
builded,  fitted  and  adorned,  must  not  be  enslaved 
and  degraded.  Not  Plato,  nor  Buchanan,  nor 
Locke,  but  the  Word,  read  with  reverence  daily  in 


14  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

the  household,  and  expounded  in  the  sanctuary,  was 
the  chief  instructor  of  the  body  of  the  colonists  in 
the  theories  of  popular  rights.  They  were  icono 
clasts,  but  of  a  discriminating  sort — men  who  did 
not  destroy  for  the  mere  pleasure  of  destroying, 
but  to  make  room  for  better  things.  Independency 
of  thought  is  the  first  requisite  of  the  responsible 
citizen.  Individual  independence  necessarily  pre 
cedes  community  independence.  The  free  man  came 
before  the  free  state;  and  the  free  state  will  not 
survive  him.  Religion  had  a  mighty  hold  upon 
the  men  who  wrought  out  our  freedom  and  molded 
our  civil  institutions;  as  the  public  fasts,  thanksgiv 
ings,  prayers  in  congress  and  the  legislatures,  and 
the  reverent  appeals  and  strict  injunctions  to  reli 
gious  duty  that  abound  in  the  military  orders  and 
in  the  correspondence  of  Washington,  very  fully 
show.  There  had  been  bigotry,  narrowness,  even 
cruelty,  in  the  colonial  churches — it  was  hard  to  un 
learn  the  old  lessons.  But  the  idea  of  the  nobility 
and  freedom  of  the  individual  was  there,  and  char 
ity  was  fast  widening  this  thought  to  include  the 
other  man.  The  man's  estimate  of  himself  and  of 
his  rights  was  clear  and  strong.  He  only  needed 
to  be  taught  that  other  men's  rights  were  quite  as 
sacred  and  quite  as  clear. 

Mr.  Frothingham  says:  "This  people — a  new 
race,  molding  their  institutions  under  Christian  in 
fluences — were  fixed  in  the  traits  that  characterize 


THE   NATIONAL    CONSTITUTION  15 

Americans.  Without  the  infection  of  wild  politi 
cal  or  social  theories,  they  were  animated  by  a  love 
of  liberty  and  a  spirit  of  personal  independence  un 
known  to  the  great  body  of  the  people  of  Europe, 
while  at  the  same  time  recognizing  the  law  which 
united  the  individual  to  the  family  and  to  the  so 
ciety  in  which  he  is  appointed  to  live,  to  the  mu 
nicipality  and  the  commonwealth  which  gave  him 
protection,  and  to  a  great  nation  which  met  and 
satisfied  the  natural  sentiment  of  country." 

Like  the  pioneer  miners  in  your  California 
gulches,  the  colonists  organized  communities  and 
made  laws  adapted  to  the  local  needs.  No  Cortez 
or  Pizarro  led  our  colonists  in  plundering  crusades, 
or  organized  their  defense  against  savage  neigh 
bors.  They  were  not  gold-seekers,  but  home-seek 
ers.  They  came  in  families,  and  were  thoughtful 
of  posterity.  They  sought  a  country — a  better 
country  than  that  from  which  they  had  come  out — 
a  country  not  only  to  live  and  die  in,  but  to  live 
and  die  for.  The  Puritan  home  life  was  austere; 
but  those  homes  produced  men  and  women  whom 
no  threat  or  danger  could  move  from  their  convic 
tions,  nor  any  master  enslave. 

England  threw  her  colonists  much  upon  them 
selves;  and  the  savage  effectively  co-operated  in 
developing  them  into  strong,  self-reliant  men.  Both 
were  cruel  teachers,  but  the  product  was  that  high 
type  of  American  manhood  that  finally  overcame 


1 6  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

both.  Then  men  and  women  who  came  to  these 
distant  and  dangerous  shores  were  individualized 
by  the  very  act  of  coming;  and  every  incident  of 
pioneer  life  had  the  same  tendency.  The  savage 
introduced  a  new  human  valuation  that  took  no  ac 
count  of  titles  or  ancestry,  but  only  of  achievement 
— the  leader  was  the  man  in  front.  The  Indian 
wars  exercised  the  colonists  in  arms;  introduced 
into  every  cabin  an  effective  weapon,  in  the  use  of 
which  even  the  boys  became  skillful.  During  the 
French  and  Indian  war  the  colonies  furnished 
twenty-five  thousand  men  to  the  English  army. 
The  foot  of  the  hunter  was  free;  for  there  were 
no  game  preserves  or  game-keepers  in  the  Ameri 
can  forests. 

The  "frontier"  has  now  disappeared;  and  the 
loss  of  it  is  a  calamity.  It  meant  cheap  or  free 
lands  for  the  landless — adventure  for  the  restless, 
a  new  chance  in  life  for  the  beaten,  a  school  for 
the  development  of  a  free,  unconventional  Ameri 
can  manhood  and  womanhood;  the  exercise  in  gov 
ernment  and  public  affairs  of  our  ambitious  young 
men — the  healthy  distribution  of  population — the 
preservation  of  the  revolutionary  type  of  men;  for 
the  men  of  '76  were  frontiersmen. 

The  Indian  also  mightily  stimulated  the  commu 
nity  idea.  Organization,  the  next  lesson  in  our 
civil  development,  he  enforced  under  frightful  pen 
alties.  Every  man  a  neighbor,  and  every  man  his 


THE    NATIONAL    CONSTITUTION  17 

neighbor's  keeper,  was  the  condition  of  existence 
in  the  feeble  and  exposed  settlements.  The  town 
meeting  for  consultation,  and  the  village  block 
house  for  defense  and  safety,  were  the  kindergar 
tens  of  the  republic.  In  the  town  meetings  the 
man  who  had  something  to  say  was  heard,  with 
out  waiting  for  his  "betters" — though  he  were 
only  the  cobbler  or  a  truant  boy  who  had  seen  the 
prints  of  moccasins  in  the  adjacent  woods. 

Life  and  living  were  reduced  to  their  simplest 
elements;  and,  in  the  northern  colonies,  the  long, 
severe  winters,  and  the  ungenerous  soil,  condi 
tioned  both  upon  industry  and  an  economy  that 
was  near  to  parsimony.  Men  who  conducted  their 
households  upon  lines  of  the  strictest  economy 
were  sure  to  be  watchful  of  public  expenditures, 
and  resentful  of  the  smallest  exaction  that  was  not 
supported  by  a  public  necessity,  and  laid  by  law 
ful  authority. 

Public  assemblages  of  the  body  of  the  people,  an 
indispensable  incident  of  free  government,  were 
practically  coincident  in  time  with  the  landing  of 
the  colonists.  They  did  not  have  their  origin  in 
any  study  of  the  rights  of  man,  or  of  the  theories 
of  free  government.  They  were  spontaneous;  they 
grew  out  of  the  situation — as  naturally  as  plough 
ing  and  seeding.  What  more  natural  than  that 
these  infant  communities,  finding  themselves  with 
out  recourse  to  the  old  sources  of  civil  authority 


1 8  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT, 

and  direction,  and  feeling  the  necessity  of  concur 
rence  in  and  submission  to  some  rules  of  order 
and  living,  should  assemble  the  whole  body  of  the 
people  for  deliberation,  and  give  the  sanction  of 
the  free  concurrence  of  all,  or  the  controlling 
weight  of  a  majority,  to  rules  that  were  to  be 
binding  upon  all.  Especially  was  this  natural  to 
Englishmen.  Guizot  says:  "When  there  scarcely 
remained  traces  of  popular  assemblages,  the  re 
membrance  of  them,  of  the  right  of  free  men  to 
deliberate  and  transact  their  business  together,  re 
sided  in  the  minds  of  men  as  a  primitive  tradition 
and  a  thing  which  might  come  about  again."  The 
town  meeting  was  adequate  when  the  subjects  to 
be  dealt  with  were  of  a  municipal  character.  But, 
as  settlements  were  multiplied  and  common  inter 
ests  were  developed,  representative  assemblies,  com 
posed  of  chosen  delegates  from  the  towns,  were 
needed,  and  the  need  produced  them.  Professor 
Seeley  says  the  colonial  assemblies  "were  not  for 
mally  instituted,  but  grew  up  by  themselves,  be 
cause  it  was  in  the  nature  of  Englishmen  to  as 
semble." 

The  threat  of  tribal  attacks  drew  towns  and  even 
colonies  into  consultation  and  co-operation.  The 
first  union  among  the  New  England  colonies,  made 
in  1643,  recited  that  "Whereas  we  live  encom 
passed  with  people  of  several  nations  and  strange 
languages  which  hereafter  may  prove  injurious  to 


THE   NATIONAL    CONSTITUTION  IQ 

us  or  our  posterity.  And  forasmuch  as  the  na 
tives  have  formerly  committed  sundry  insolences 
and  outrages  upon  several  plantations  of  the  En 
glish  and  have  of  late  combined  themselves  against 
us  *  *  *  We,  therefore,  do  conceive  it  our 
bounden  duty  without  delay  to  enter  into  a  present 
consociation  amongst  ourselves  for  mutual  help 
and  strength  in  all  our  future  concernments."  They 
did  not  await  the  approval  of  the  crown.  Edward 
Winslow  well  said :  "If  we  in  America  should 
forbear  to  unite  for  defense  against  a  common  ene 
my  till  we  have  leave  from  England,  our  throats 
might  be  all  cut  before  the  messenger  would  be 
half  seas  over." 

Nearness  to  the  savage  and  remoteness  from 
England  were  both  favoring  conditions  in  the  de 
velopment  of  a  hardy  citizenship  and  of  the  great 
republic.  If  our  ancestors  had  found  this  conti 
nent  unpeopled  and  the  ocean  passage  had  been 
what  it  is  to-day,  how  different  the  story  would 
have  been.  Necessity,  rather  than  philosophy,  was 
their  instructor  in  civics.  The  colonists  could  not 
know  in  time  the  pleasure  of  the  crown,  and  so 
they  pleased  themselves,  and  the  habit  grew.  In 
the  absence  of  the  anointed  ruler,  a  count  of  hands 
was  a  natural  suggestion. 

Our  ancestors  in  older  England  had  possessed, 
in  the  hundreds,  shires  and  counties,  some  powers 
of  local  government.  These  had  largely  been  as- 


2O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

sumed  by  the  crown,  but  the  tradition  of  them  and 
the  inherited  adaptation  to  their  use  were  in  the 
minds  and  blood  of  their  descendants.  The  com 
pact  of  government  made  on  the  Mayflower  is  said 
to  have  grown  out  of  the  mutinous  disposition  of 
a  few  persons,  not  of  the  Leyden  church,  and  prob 
ably  servants.  The  Pilgrims  had  embarked  under 
a  patent  from  the  Virginia  Company,  and  these  ill- 
disposed  persons  insisted  that  if  the  proposed  land 
ing,  outside  of  the  limits  of  that  company,  was 
made,  they  would  be  under  no  legal  restraint.  The 
emergency  was  met  by  the  "solemn  covenant" 
whereby  they  combined  "into  a  civil  body  politic 
for  our  (their)  better  ordering  and  preservation." 
"And  by  virtue  hereof,"  they  said,  (we)  "do  en 
act,  constitute  and  frame  such  just  and  equal  laws, 
ordinances,  acts,  constitutions,  and  officers,  from 
time  to  time,  as  shall  be  thought  most  meet  and 
convenient  for  the  general  good  of  the  colony;  unto 
which  we  promise  all  due  submission  and  obe 
dience." 

Here  was  an  exigency.  If  the  colonists  had 
been  of  Spain  it  would  possibly  have  been  re 
solved  by  the  choice  of  a  captain,  with  arbitrary 
powers  or  by  some  bold  spirit  seizing  the  leader 
ship;  but  they  were  Englishmen  and  protestant 
Christians,  and  so  the  compact  of  government  was 
democratic.  Of  the  Mayflower  compact  Judge 
Story  says,  it  was,  "if  not  the  first,  at  least  the  best 


THE    NATIONAL    CONSTITUTION  21 

authenticated  case  of  an  original  social  compact 
for  the  establishment  of  a  nation  which  is  to  be 
found  in  the  annals  of  the  world."  They  did  not 
announce  any  political  maxims,  as  that  civil  gov 
ernment  derives  its  "just  powers  from  the  consent 
of  the  governed,"  or  that  "all  men  are  created 
equal";  but  they  applied  them.  The  compact  was 
introduced  by  the  declaration  that  they  were  "loyal 
subjects  of  our  dread  sovereign  Lord  King  James," 
and  they  at  once  applied  for  a  charter  from  the 
crown.  So  far  as  they  assumed  general  govern 
mental  powers,  it  was  ad  interim — until  the  crown 
should  act.  But  as  to  local  goyernment — the  or 
dering  of  things  that  required  a  particular  knowl 
edge  of  the  needs  and  changing  conditions  of  the 
community — the  assumption  was  never  intermit 
ted,  and  local  government  was  never  wholly  lost 
in  the  colonies. 

A  government  by  the  English  crown  and  parlia 
ment  was,  as  to  local  and  municipal  affairs,  not 
only  incongruous  but  impossible.  Things  affecting 
the  personal  security,  health  and  comfort  of  the 
people,  must  be  committed  in  a  large  measure  to 
local  control.  Local  needs  and  conditions  are  so 
various  that  we  have  found  it  impossible  for  the 
government  at  Washington  to  legislate  for  the  terri 
tories.  Some  general  limitations,  some  provisions 
in  the  nature  of  fundamental  law,  have  been  made; 
but,  subject  to  these  and  to  the  power  of  congress 


22  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

to  annul  any  territorial  law — a  power  seldom  exer 
cised — it  has  been  found  necessary  to  give  general 
legislative  powers  to  legislatures  chosen  by  the  peo 
ple  in  each  territory.  When  a  civil  government 
was  given  to  Alaska,  the  best  congress  could  do — 
in  the  absence  of  a  sufficient  population  to  organ 
ize  a  local  legislature — was  to  declare  that  the  laws 
of  the  state  of  Oregon  should  be  the  laws  of  Alaska. 
This  system  of  local  control  we  have  also  perpet 
uated  in  the  states.  Cities,  towns,  counties,  town 
ships,  school,  and  road  districts,  have  many  impor 
tant  powers  given  to  them — some  of  them  of  a 
legislative  character.  No  state  legislature  could 
satisfactorily  determine  all  these  matters — though 
each  locality  had  its  representative  in  the  body, 
and  its  sittings  were  within  a  half  day's  travel  of 
the  people  to  be  affected. 

These  adjustments  and  subdivisions  of  the  pow 
ers  of  government  are  not  so  much  of  conven 
ience  of  philosophy  as  of  necessity.  Consider  then 
how  impossible  it  was  that  the  king  and  parlia 
ment  could  satisfactorily  direct  the  local  affairs  of 
the  colonies — three  thousand  miles,  a  six  weeks' 
journey,  full  of  discomfort  and  peril — no  represen 
tation  in  the  parliament — conditions  that  had 
scarce  a  resemblance  to  English  life — needs  born 
in  .a  night  and  exigent  as  a  savage  war-cry — a 
king  and  parliament  absorbed  by  European  inter 
ests  and  intrigues,  ignorant  of  American  affairs, 


THE    NATIONAL    CONSTITUTION  23 

and  so  selfish  as  to  be  unteachable  and  wholly 
unsympathetic — these  were  the  conditions  that, 
from  the  landing  of  the  first  colonists,  were  slow 
ly,  unconsciously,  but  inevitably,  bringing  to  birth 
the  Great  Republic.  As  well  might  Gloucester 
fishermen  attempt  to  make  laws  for  a  Sierra  min 
ing  camp  as  the  English  parliament  for  an  Ameri 
can  colony. 

A  local  control  of  local  affairs  is  primitive  and 
natural.  Government  was  begun  on  that  basis. 
The  family,  the  original  unit  of  human  associa 
tion,  made  its  own  rules  of  living;  so  the  pro 
gressive  forms  of  association — the  tribe,  the  vil 
lage,  the  city,  the  state,  the  federation — were 
evolved  from  dangers,  ambitions,  or  needs,  com 
mon  to  several  families,  tribes,  villages,  cities  or 
states.  The  function  of  the  state,  whether  single 
or  federal,  had  to  do  with  things  of  a  general  na 
ture,  of  common  concern  to  the  families,  or  tribes, 
or  states,  composing  it — such  as  war,  peace,  diplo 
macy.  The  English  habit  of  local  government  was 
derived  from  the  Teutonic  invaders  and  conquer 
ors.  In  Germany  the  community  organization  was 
called  the  "mark,"  and  the  town  meeting,  where 
the  affairs  of  the  "mark"  were  discussed  and  de 
cided,  was  the  "mark-moot."  The  conquest  was  so 
thorough  that  scarcely  a  trace  of  the  Celtic  inhab 
itants  was  left.  The  ground  was  made  fallow  for 
the  unmixed  planting  of  the  civil  system  of  the 


24  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

German  conquerors.  Names  were  changed,  but  not 
the  substance.  The  "mark"  became  the  "tun"  or 
"township",  and  the  local  assembly  the  "tun-moot". 
These  free  and  full  assemblages  of  citizens  chose 
the  local  officers  and  selected  and  sent  four  repre 
sentatives  to  the  courts  of  the  hundred  and  the 
shire.  This  old  English  term,  the  "hundred,"  be 
came  familiar  to  all  of  us — though,  perhaps,  not 
understood  by  all — when,  during  the  civil  war,  we 
heard  so  often  from  General  Grant  on  the  James 
river,  and  the  dispatches  were  dated  "Bermuda 
Hundred."  Mr.  Fiske  says:  "In  these  four  dis 
creet  men  sent  to  speak  for  their  township  in  the 
old  country  assembly  we  have  the  germ  of  insti 
tutions  that  have  ripened  into  the  house  of  commons 
and  into  the  legislatures  of  modern  kingdoms  and 
republics.  In  the  system  of  representation  thus  in 
augurated  lay  the  future  possibility  of  such  gigan 
tic  political  aggregations  as  the  United  States  of 
America." 

The  organization  of  our  national  government 
was  possible  only  upon  the  basis  of  a  reserved  lo 
cal  control  of  local  affairs;  and  the  preservation 
of  that  system  is  essential  to  that  popular  con 
tent  which  is  the  only  security  for  the  preserva 
tion  of  the  union.  California  and  Maine  could 
not  be  united  under  a  government  modeled  on  any 
other  system.  At  the  basis  of  this  system  is  the 
palpable  incongruity  of  including  in  the  govern- 


THE   NATIONAL   CONSTITUTION  2$ 

ing  body  those  who  have  neither  knowledge  of 
nor  direct  interest  in  the  matters  to  be  determined. 
At  another  time  I  will  speak  of  the  complement 
of  this  truth — the  exclusive  control  and  direction 
of  all  general  concerns  by  the  national  govern 
ment.  The  one  is  as  essential  as  the  other.  It  is 
quite  as,  rather  more,  incongruous  and  intolerable 
that  general  concerns  affecting  the  whole  body  of 
the  republic  should  be  controlled  or  unduly  influ 
enced  by  states  or  localities.  If  only  such  as  are 
directly  affected  by  the  conclusions  reached  are  to 
be  admitted  to  the  ballot  and  the  conference,  then 
all  such  must  be  admitted  to  a  free  and  equal 
participation. 

The  colonists  brought  with  them,  not  only  their 
English  traditions  and  instincts,  but  they  stoutly 
claimed  their  English  citizenship,  and  the  liberties 
and  personal  rights  that  they  would  have  possessed 
if  they  had  remained  in  the  old  home.  Many  of 
the  charters  expressly  preserved  these  rights.-  The 
first  charter  of  Virginia,  granted  by  King  James, 
in  1606,  declared  that  all  British  subjects  and 
their  children  should  "have  and  enjoy  all  liber 
ties,  franchises  and  immunities,  within  any  of  our 
other  dominions,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  if 
they  had  been  abiding  and  born  within  this  our 
realm  of  England,  or  any  other  of  our  said  domin 
ions."  The  charters  of  Connecticut,  Georgia,  Mas- 


26  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

sachusetts,  North  and  South  Carolina,  and  Rhode 
Island  contained  similar  provisions. 

But  these  rights  were  not  well  defined  at  home. 
Some  of  the  liberties  that  had  been  wrested  from 
the  crown  had  been  resumed.  The  English  consti 
tution,  during  the  colonial  period,  was  not  only  un 
written,  but  undeveloped.  The  contest  in  the  col 
onies  was  partly  concurrent  and  on  similar  lines 
with  the  struggle  of  the  English  people  against 
kings  who  sought  to  attain  absolute  power.  The 
rights  of  Englishmen,  the  powers  of  parliament, 
the  limitations  of  the  king's  prerogative,  were  yet 
to  be  defined  and  adjusted.  The  present  magnifi 
cent  English  constitutional  government  was  in 
growth;  but  it  had  not  yet  attained  form  and 
strength  in  its  native  soil,  and  was  not  ready  for 
transplanting.  And,  besides  all  this,  the  widely  dif 
ferent  conditions  prevailing  in  the  colonies,  as  we 
have  seen,  required  modification  and  adaptation  at 
the  least.  Self-governing,  prosperous,  loyal  English 
colonies  now  exist — the  fruit  of  a  defined  and  liberal 
home  constitution,  and  of  the  disastrous  failure  of 
the  attempt  to  enslave  her  greater  colonies — but 
they  were  impossible  to  that  generation. 

One  most  important  principle  had,  after  centu 
ries  of  struggle,  been  established  and  set  in  the 
English  constitution,  namely,  that  revenues  were 
not  to  be  levied  at  the  king's  pleasure,  but  granted 
by  a  body  more  or  less  representative  of  the  peo- 


THE   NATIONAL    CONSTITUTION  2.J 

pie.  The  representation  was  sometimes,  as  to  many, 
theoretical  rather  than  actual — of  classes  rather 
than  of  the  body  of  the  people;  but  the  principle 
that  individual  property  could  not  be  taken  for  the 
public  use,  except  by  the  vote  of  a  body  more  or 
less  fully  representative  of  the  tax-payer,  had  tri 
umphed  and  the  invasions  of  it  by  the  king  were 
becoming  less  frequent  and  more  perilous. 

There  was  a  long  period  of  English  history  that 
was  characterized  by  successful  aggressions  on  the 
part  of  the  crown  upon  the  rights  of  the  people 
and  the  powers  of  the  courts  and  of  parliament. 
Hume,  speaking  of  the  reign  of  James  I  (1603-16), 
says: 

"The  great,  complaisance,  too,  of  parliaments,  dur 
ing  so  long  a  period,  had  extremely  degraded  and 
obscured  those  assemblies;  and  as  all  instances  of 
opposition  to  prerogative  must  have  been  drawn 
from  a  remote  age,  they  were  unknown  to  a  great 
many,  and  had  the  less  authority  even  with  those 
who  were  acquainted  with  them.  These  examples, 
besides,  of  liberty  had  commonly,  in  ancient  times, 
been  accompanied  with  such  circumstances  of  vio 
lence,  convulsion,  civil  war  and  disorder  that  they 
presented  but  a  disagreeable  idea  to  the  inquisitive 
part  of  the  people,  and  afforded  small  inducement 
to  renew  such  dismal  scenes.  By  a  great  many, 
therefore,  monarchy,  simple  and  unmixed,  was  con 
ceived  to  be  the  government  of  England;  and  those 


28  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

popular  assemblies  were  supposed  to  form  only  the 
ornament  of  the  fabric,  without  being  in  any  de 
gree  essential  to  its  being  and  existence." 

And,  in  a  note  it  is  said :  "I  have  not  met  with  any 
English  writer  in  that  age  who  speaks  of  England 
as  a  limited  monarchy,  but  as  an  absolute  one, 
where  the  people  have  many  privileges." 

This  may  be  accepted  as  the  view  of  the  king 
and  as  an  approximately  true  description  of  things 
,as  they  were;  but  the  great  charters  never  ceased 
to  be  a  part  of  the  English  constitution — they  were 
dormant,  but  unrevoked.  Kings  had  trampled  them 
under  foot;  but  in  so  doing  had  only  bedded  the 
seeds  of  liberty  in  a  prepared  soil. 

The  revolution  of  1640,  resulting  in  the  execu 
tion  of  Charles  I,  and  in  the  establishment  of  the 
commonwealth  under  Cromwell,  the  restoration, 
the  renewal  of  the  struggle  under  Charles  II,  and 
James  II — the  deposition  of  the  latter  by  a  parlia 
ment  assembled  without  the  king's  writ,  the  choice 
by  the  same  parliament  of  William  and  Mary, 
their  settlement  upon  the  throne  under  a  compact 
in  the  nature  of  a  bill  of  rights,  the  increasing 
power  of  the  house  of  commons,  the  substitution 
of  annual,  for  life  grants  of  revenue  to  the  crown, 
making  an  annual  parliament  necessary — all  these 
great  episodes  in  English  history  and  in  human 
progress  were  enacted  before  the  interested  vision 
of  the  English  colonists  in  America,  and  were 


THE   NATIONAL    CONSTITUTION  29 

highly  instructive  and  suggestive.  Out  of  these 
struggles,  and  out  of  the  reformation,  had  come  a 
literature  of  liberty.  The  dignity  and  the  equality 
of  men — the  state  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the 
state — the  universal  fatherhood  of  God;  and  its 
corollary,  the  universal  brotherhood  of  man,  liberty 
of  conscience  and  of  speech — all  these  great  themes 
had  found  impassioned  expression.  What  wonder 
that  the  colonists  began  very  early  to  ask  if  the 
king  may  not  lay  a  charge  upon  Englishmen  at 
home  by  an  order  in  council,  but  only  by  the  free 
votes  of  a  representative  assembly,  why  should  he 
do  so  upon  Englishmen  who  have,  for  the  glory 
of  God  and  of  England,  braved  the  perils  of  the 
sea  and  of  the  savage? — and  that  further  and  more 
searching  question,  by  what  right  does  a  parlia 
ment  in  which  we  have  no  representation  assume 
sovereign  legislative  power  over  us? 

The  earlier  charters  appear  to  have  been  framed 
without  any  adequate  conception  of  the  commer 
cial  and  political  importance  which  the  colonies 
were  to  attain;  and  for  a  time  the  king  was  lax 
in  his  supervision,  and  not  careful  to  maintain  pre 
rogatives  that  seemed  to  involve  burdens  rather 
than  benefits  to  the  crown  treasury. 

In  my  next  lecture  I  will  ask  your  attention  to 
some  of  these  earliest  American  constitutions. 


THE  COLONIAL  CHARTERS 

SECOND   LECTURE 
Delivered  at  Stanford  University,  March  12,  1804 

It  is  my  purpose  to-day  to  notice  some  general 
aspects  of  the  charters  under  which  the  American 
settlements  were  made,  and  to  outline  the  develop 
ment  in  the  colonies  of  those  unwritten  constitu 
tions  which  came  by  use  to  be  treated — though  not 
so  accepted  by  the  English  crown — as  expressing 
the  fundamental  civil  rights  of  the  inhabitants. 

The  colonists,  in  their  contentions  with  the  crown, 
demanded  all  the  rights  given  by  their  charters, 
but  they  never  accepted  the  charters  as  containing 
full  bills  of  rights.  If  a  specification  could  not  be 
found  in  the  charter  of  the  colony  it  was  sought 
in  the  Magna  Charta;  and,  if  not  found  there,  in 
later  English  precedents;  and,  when  all  these  gave 
out,  in  God's  great  charter  of  original  and  inalien 
able  rights. 

The  earlier  charters  were  chiefly  land  grants — 
rather  conveyances  than  civil  constitutions.  The 

30 


THE    COLONIAL    CHARTERS  3! 

theory  of  the  English  law  upon  which  they  pro 
ceeded  was  that  all  newly-discovered  lands  were  the 
property  of  the  king  and  might  be  granted  by  him 
to  corporations  or  individuals  upon  agreed  terms 
and  charges.  Some  of  these  American  grants  were 
to  companies  or  corporations,  upon  which  succession 
and  certain  governing  powers  of  a  corporate  nature 
were  conferred.  The  corporations  were  subject  to 
what  was  known  as  the  visitorial  power  of  the 
king,  and  the  grants  or  charters  to  forfeiture  by  ju 
dicial  decree,  for  cause. 

The  English  parliament,  at  the  beginning,  had 
no  participation  in  these  matters.  The  charters 
were  not  submitted  to  it  for  its  approval;  and  the 
only  relation  between  the  colonists  and  the  kingdom 
was  through  the  king.  This  fact  should  be  kept 
in  mind;  for  it  will  appear  that  when,  at  a  later 
period,  the  English  parliament  asserted  a  sovereign 
legislative  supremacy  over  the  colonies  the  claim 
was  denied,  and  the  denial  was  grounded  by  some 
upon  the  theory  that  the  colonies  were  royal  pos 
sessions — having  the  same  king  with  the  English — 
but  not  a  part  of  the  realm  of  England. 

The  introductory  words  of  the  Massachusetts 
charter,  of  1620,  were:  "James>  by  the  Grace  of 
God,  King  of  England,  Scotland,  France  and  Ire 
land,  Defender  of  the  Faith  &c.  *  *  *  of  our 
especiall  Grace,  mere  motion,  and  certain  knowledge, 
by  the  advice  of  the  Lords  and  others  of  our  Privy 


32  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

Council  have  for  us,  our  heirs  and  successors, 
granted,  ordained  and  established,"  etc.  The  conclu 
sion  reads :  "Witness  our  selfe  at  Westminster/'  etc. 

Franklin,  writing  in  1774,  said: 

"From  a  thorough  inquiry  (on  occasion  of 
the  stamp  act)  into  the  nature  of  the  connec 
tion  between  Britain  and  the  colonies,  I  am 
convinced  that  the  bond  of  their  union  is  not  the 
parliament,  but  the  king.  That,  in  removing  to 
America,  a  country  out  of  the  realm,  they  did  not 
carry  with  them  the  statutes  then  existing;  for,  if 
they  did,  the  Puritans  must  have  been  subject  there 
to  the  same  grievous  act  of  conformity,  tithes, 
spiritual  courts,  etc.,  which  they  meant  to  be  free 
from  by  going  thither;  and  in  vain  would  they 
have  left  their  native  country,  and  all  the  con 
veniences  and  comforts  of  its  improved  state,  to 
combat  the  hardships  of  a  new  settlement  in  a  dis 
tant  wilderness,  if  they  had  taken  with  them  what 
they  meant  to  fly  from,  or  if  they  had  left  a  power 
behind  them  capable  of  sending  the  same  chains 
after  them,  to  bind  them  in  America.  They  took 
with  them,  however,  by  compact,  their  allegiance  to 
the  king,  and  a  legislative  power  for  the  making 
a  new  body  of  laws  with  his  assent,  by  which  they 
were  to  be  governed.  Hence  they  became  distinct 
states,  under  the  same  prince,  united  as  Ireland  is 
to  the  crown,  but  not  to  the  realm,  of  England,  and 
governed  each  by  its  own  laws,  though  with  the 


THE   COLONIAL    CHARTERS  33 

same  sovereign,  and  having  each  the  right  of 
granting  its  own  money  to  that  sovereign." 

This  reasoning  was  not  adopted  by  all  of  those 
who  denied  the  supremacy  of  the  English  parlia 
ment.  For  the  most  part,  as  we  shall  see,  they  did 
not  refine  very  much,  but  were  satisfied  to  rest 
their  opposition  upon  the  principle  that  taxation 
without  representation  was  in  violation  of  their 
rights  as  Englishmen. 

The  early  grants  or  charters  treated  the  settle 
ments  as  commercial  adventures,  and  took  little  ac 
count  of  matters  of  civil  government.  In  most 
cases  the  patentees  were  men  who  did  not  contem 
plate  an  American  residence.  They  adventured 
their  money,  but  not  their  persons;  they  sought  pe 
cuniary,  rather  than  political  advantages;  govern 
ment  was  an  incident.  The  governing  body  of  the 
corporation — its  board  of  directors,  as  we  should 
say — selected  the  resident  governor  and  other  officers 
and  made  laws  and  regulations,  much  as  a  railroad 
corporation  does  with  us.  But,  as  the  visions  of 
sudden  wealth  were  dissipated  from  the  minds  of 
the  patentees,  and  the  colonists  became  more  numer 
ous,  political  interests  and  considerations  came  to 
have  a  fuller  recognition,  and  before  long  to  be  of 
the  first  importance.  And  so  the  later  charters 
came  more  to  resemble  civil  constitutions — laws  to 
have  more  consideration  than  lands,  and  the  settlers 
more  than  the  home  adventurers. 


34  VIEWS    OF    AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

The  American  colonies  have  been  assigned  to 
three  general  classes,  though  several  of  them  passed 
from  one  class  to  the  other  before  the  revolution. 
These  classes  were,  first,  the  charter  colonies.  Of 
these,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island 
only,  preserved  their  charter  form.  The  later  char 
ters  were  quite  distinctive  from  the  earlier,  and  in 
a  larger  or  smaller  degree  authorized — or  implied — 
a  government  by  the  people.  Representative  assem 
blies  were,  in  some  cases,  authorized,  and  some  of 
the  charters  were  so  consonant  with  republican  in 
stitutions  that  they  were  capable  of  being  continued 
as  the  fundamental  law  of  free  states  in  the  union 
of  the  states.  It  is  a  very  interesting  fact  that  Con 
necticut  and  Rhode  Island  continued  under  their 
charters,  not  only  during  the  revolution,  but  long 
after  the  adoption  of  the  national  constitution.  The 
charter  of  Rhode  Island,  granted  in  1663,  was  not 
superseded  as  the  constitution  of  that  state  until 
1842,  and  the  charter  of  Connecticut,  of  1662,  was 
the  organic  law  of  that  state  until  1818. 

In  the  second  class,  known  as  the  royal  or 
provincial  colonies,  the  governing  powers  were  ex 
ercised  by  the  crown;  not  through  interposed  cor 
porate  boards,  or  proprietors,  but  through  gover 
nors  and  councils  appointed  by  the  king,  and  act 
ing  under  royal  instructions  or  commissions.  The 
instructions  were  made  and  modified  at  the  king's 
pleasure;  but  under  these  instructions  and  in  spite 


THE    COLONIAL   CHARTERS  35 

of  them,  representative  assemblies  were  organized, 
and  a  large  measure  of  popular  control  assumed.* 

The  proprietary  colonies  constituted  the  third 
class.  Here  the  land  grants  were  to  private  indi 
viduals,  and  were  accompanied  by  a  grant  to  the 
patentees  or  proprietors  of  large  powers  of  govern 
ment.  Before  the  revolution  all  of  the  proprietary 
colonies  had  become  royal  colonies  by  the  surrender 
of  their  charters  to  the  king,  except  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware  and  Maryland. 

Mr.  Blackstone's  classification  of  the  American 
colonies,  and  his  view  of  the  rights  of  the  colo 
nists,  as  given  in  his  commentaries,  are  these: 

"Besides  these  adjacent  islands,  our  most  distant 
plantations  in  America  and  elsewhere  are  also,  in 
some  respect,  subject  to  the  English  laws.  Planta 
tions  or  colonies,  in  distant  countries,  are  either 
such  where  the  lands  are  claimed  by  right  of  occu 
pancy  only,  by  finding  them  desert  and  uncultivated, 
and  peopling  them  from  the  mother  country;  or 
where,  when  already  cultivated,  they  have  been 
either  gained  by  conquest  or  ceded  to  us  by  treaties. 
And  both  these  rights  are  founded  upon  the  law  of 
nature,  or  at  least  upon  that  of  nations.  But  there 
is  a  difference  between  these  two  species  of  colo 
nies  with  respect  to  the  laws  by  which  they  are 

*  New  Hampshire,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Virginia  (after  1624), 
North  Carolina  and  South  Carolina  (after  1729),  and  Georgia  (after 
1751)  were  provincial  colonies. 


36  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

bound.  For  it  hath  been  held  that  if  an  uninhabited 
country  be  discovered  and  planted  by  English  sub 
jects,  all  the  laws  then  in  being,  which  are  the  birth 
right  of  every  subject,  are  immediately  there  in 
force.  But  this  must  be  understood  with  very 
many  and  very  great  restrictions.  Such  colonists 
carry  with  them  only  so  much  of  the  English  law 
as  is  applicable  to  their  own  situation  and  the  con 
dition  of  an  infant  colony;  such,  for  instance,  as 
the  general  rules  of  inheritance  and  of  protection 
from  personal  injuries.  The  artificial  refinements 
and  distinctions  incident  to  the  property  of  a  great 
and  commercial  people,  the  laws  of  police  and  reve 
nue  (such  especially  as  are  enforced  by  penalties), 
the  mode  of  maintenance  for  the  established  clergy, 
the  jurisdiction  of  spiritual  courts,  and  a  multitude 
of  other  provisions,  are  neither  necessary  nor  con 
venient  for  them,  and  therefore  are  not  in  force. 
What  shall  be  omitted  and  what  rejected,  at  what 
times,  and  under  what  restrictions,  must,  in  case  of 
dispute,  be  decided  in  the  first  instance  by  their 
own  provincial  judicature,  subject  to  the  revision 
and  control  of  the  king  in  council;  the  whole  of 
their  constitution  being  also  liable  to  be  new- 
modelled  and  reformed  by  the  general  superintend 
ing  power  of  the  legislature  in  the  mother  country. 
But  in  conquered  or  ceded  countries,  that  have  al 
ready  laws  of  their  own,  the  king  may  indeed  alter 
and  change  those  laws;  but,  until  he  does  actually 


THE    COLONIAL    CHARTERS  37 

change  them,  the  ancient  laws  of  the  country  re 
main,  unless  such  as  are  against  the  law  of  God, 
as  in  the  case  of  an  infidel  country.  Our  American 
plantations  are  principally  of  this  latter  sort,  being 
obtained  in  the  last  century  either  by  right  of  con 
quest  and  driving  out  the  natives  (with  what  nat 
ural  justice  I  shall  not  at  present  inquire),  or  by 
treaties.  And  therefore  the  common  law  of  Eng 
land,  as  such,  has  no  allowance  or  authority  there; 
they  being  no  part  of  the  mother  country,  but  dis 
tinct,  though  dependent  dominions.  They  are  sub 
ject,  however,  to  the  control  of  the  parliament, 
though  (like  Ireland,  Man,  and  the  rest)  not 
bound  by  any  acts  of  parliament,  unless  particularly 
named. 

"With  respect  to  their  interior  polity,  our  colonies 
are  properly  of  three  sorts,  i.  Provincial  establish 
ments,  the  constitutions  of  which  depend  on  the  re 
spective  commissions  issued  by  the  crown  to  the 
governors,  and  the  instructions  which  usually  ac 
company  those  commissions,  under  the  authority 
of  which  provincial  assemblies  are  constituted,  with 
the  power  of  making  local  ordinances  not  repug 
nant  to  the  laws  of  England.  2.  Proprietary  gov 
ernments,  granted  out  by  the  crown  to  individuals, 
in  the  nature  of  feudatory  principalities,  with  all 
the  inferior  regalities,  and  subordinate  powers  of 
legislation,  which  formerly  belonged  to  the  owners 
of  counties-palatine:  yet  still  with  these  express 


38  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

conditions,  that  the  ends  for  which  the  grant  was 
made  be  substantially  pursued,  and  that  nothing  be 
attempted  which  may  derogate  from  the  sovereignty 
of  the  mother  country.  3.  Charter  governments,  in 
the  nature  of  civil  corporations  with  the  power  of 
making  by-laws  for  their  own  interior  regulations, 
not  contrary  to  the  laws  of  England,  and  with  such 
rights  and  authorities  as  are  especially  given  them 
in  their  special  charters  of  incorporation.  The 
form  of  government  in  most  of  them  is  borrowed 
from  that  of  England.  They  have  a  governor 
named  by  the  king  (or,  in  some  proprietary  colo 
nies,  by  the  proprietor),  who  is  his  representative 
or  deputy.  They  have  courts  of  justice  of  their 
own,  from  whose  decisions  an  appeal  lies  to  the 
king  and  council  here  in  England.  Their  general 
assemblies,  which  are  their  house  of  commons,  to 
gether  with  their  council  of  state,  being  their  upper 
house,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  king,  or  his  rep 
resentative,  the  governor,  make  laws  suited  to  their 
own  emergencies.  But  it  is  particularly  declared 
by  statutes  7  and  8,  W.  Ill,  c.  22,  that  all  laws,  by 
laws,  usages,  and  customs,  which  shall  be  in  practice 
in  any  of  the  plantations,  repugnant  to  any  law, 
made  or  to  be  made  in  this  kingdom  relative  to  the 
said  plantations,  shall  be  utterly  void  and  of  none 
effect.  And,  because  several  of  the  colonies  had 
claimed  a  sole  and  exclusive  right  of  imposing  taxes 
upon  themselves,  the  statute  6,  Geo.  Ill,  c.  12,  ex- 


THE    COLONIAL    CHARTERS  39 

pressly  declares,  that  all  his  majesty's  colonies  and 
plantations  in  America  have  been,  are,  and  of  right 
ought  to  be,  subordinate  to  and  dependent  upon  the 
imperial  crown  and  parliament  of  Great  Britain,  who 
have  full  power  and  authority  to  make  laws  and 
statutes  of  sufficient  validity  to  bind  the  colonies 
and  people  of  America,  subjects  to  the  crown  of 
Great  Britain,  in  all  cases  whatsoever.  And  this 
authority  has  been  since  very  forcibly  exemplified 
and  carried  into  act  by  the  statute  7,  Geo.  Ill,  c. 
59,  for  suspending  the  legislation  of  New  York,  and 
by  several  subsequent  statutes/' 

This  view  was  not  accepted  by  the  colonists — 
and  in  another  lecture  I  will  point  out  the  very  con 
clusive  objections  to  some  of  Mr.  Blackstone's  con 
clusions. 

We  will  now  examine  the  particular  provisions  of 
some  of  the  colonial  charters,  as  general  examples — 
it  will  not  be  possible  to  refer  to  all  of  them. 

Of  the  charter  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  of  1629, 
Mr.  Story  says:  "It  furnished  them  (the  colonists), 
however,  with  the  color  of  delegated  sovereignty,  of 
which  they  did  not  fail  to  avail  themselves.  They 
assumed  under  it  the  exercise  of  the  most  plenary 
executive,  legislative  and  judicial  powers." 

Under  Charles  II  this  charter  and  these  privileges 
were  challenged,  and,  in  1684,  the  high  court  of 
chancery  of  England  decreed  a  forfeiture  of  the 
charter,  and  a  non-popular  government  was  estab- 


4O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

lished  by  the  king,  which  was  continued  until  Will 
iam  and  Mary,  in  1691,  granted  a  new  charter, 
uniting  Massachusetts  Bay,  Plymouth  and  Maine. 
This  charter  reserved  to  the  crown  the  appointment 
of  a  governor,  in  whom  was  vested  an  absolute 
veto  upon  legislation.  A  council  was  provided  to 
be  chosen  by  the  assembly,  and  the  principal  officers 
of  the  province  were  to  be  appointed  by  the  gover 
nor  with  the  consent  of  the  council.  A  general  as 
sembly,  consisting  of  the  governor  and  council,  and 
of  representatives  chosen  from  the  towns,  assembled 
once  a  year.  This  body  established  the  courts,  im 
posed  taxes  and  made  the  necessary  laws  for  the 
government  of  the  province.  The  expressed  limita 
tions  upon  the  legislature  lay  in  the  veto  of  the 
royal  governor,,  and  in  a  veto  reserved  to  the  king 
which  might  be  exercised  within  three  years. 

Mr.  Lodge,  in  his  short  history  of  the  colonies, 
says: 

"In  Massachusetts,  after  the  loss  of  the  old  char 
ter,  a  new  charter  was  obtained  which  established 
a  form  of  government  more  closely  resembling  its 
predecessor  than  the  common  provincial  government 
from  which  some  features  were  taken.  Under  the 
old  system  the  charter  of  a  trading  corporation, 
drawn  with  intentional  vagueness,  had,  without  color 
of  law,  been  converted  into  a  foundation  of  an  inde 
pendent  state.  *  *  *  The  governor,  the  assist 
ants,  or  the  upper  house,  and  the  lower  house  were 


THE    COLONIAL    CHARTERS  41 

all  chosen  annually  by  the  freemen;  but  by  the  new 
charter  the  appointment  of  the  governor  was  given 
to  the  crown,  the  assistants  or  council  were  chosen 
by  the  assembly,  subject  to  the  governor's  approval, 
and  the  representatives  still  continued  to  be  elected 
by  the  people." 

The  first  patent  for  the  Providence  plantations,  is 
sued  in  1643  by  Robert,  Earl  of  Warwick,  as  gov 
ernor  in  chief  of  all  His  Majesty's  plantations  upon 
the  coast  of  America,  and  his  associate  commission 
ers,  recited  the  settlement  by  English  subjects  in 
the  towns  of  Providence,  Portsmouth  and  Newport, 
and  conferred  upon  them  a  charter  of  incorporation 
"with  full  power  and  authority  to  rule  themselves, 
and  such  others  as  shall  hereafter  inhabit  within  any 
part  of  the  said  tract  of  land,  by  such  a  form  of 
civil  government,  as  by  the  voluntary  consent  of  all, 
or  the  greater  part  of  them,  they  shall  find  most 
suitable  to  their  estate  and  condition;  and,  for  that 
end,  to  make  and  ordain  such  civil  laws  and  con 
stitutions,  and  to  inflict  such  punishments  upon 
transgressors,  and  for  execution  thereof,  and  to 
place,  and  displace  officers  of  justice,  as  they,  or  the 
greater  part  of  them,  shall  by  free  consent  agree 
unto." 

There  was  here,  as  in  other  charters,  a  general 
limitation  that  the  laws  made  should  be  conform 
able  to  the  laws  of  England,  so  far  as  the  conditions 
would  admit. 


42  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

The  charter  granted  for  Rhode  Island  and  Prov 
idence  plantations  by  Charles  II,  in  1663,  to  Ben 
jamin  Arnold  "and  the  rest  of  the  purchasers  and 
free  inhabitants  of  our  island,  called  Rhode  Island, 
and  the  rest  of  the  colony  of  Providence  planta 
tions,"  provided  for  a  governor,  deputy  governor 
and  ten  assistants  to  be  from  time  to  time  elected 
and  chosen  out  of  the  freemen  of  the  company. 
An  assembly  composed  of  the  assistants  and  repre 
sentatives  chosen  from  the  towns  was  to  assemble 
twice  in  each  year  "to  consult,  advise  and  determine 
in  and  about  the  affairs  and  business  of  the  said 
company  and  plantations."  The  governor,  assist 
ants  and  delegates  were  constituted  a  general  assem 
bly  with  power  to  establish  offices,  choose  officers, 
and  "from  time  to  time  to  make,  ordain,  constitute 
or  repeal  such  laws,  statutes,  orders  and  ordinances, 
forms  and  ceremonies  of  government  and  magistery 
as  to  them  shall  seem  meet  for  the  good  and  wel 
fare  of  the  said  company  and  for  the  government 
and  ordering  of  the  lands  and  hereditaments,  here 
inafter  mentioned  to  be  granted,  and  of  the  people 
who  do,  or  at  any  time  hereafter  shall,  inhabit  or 
be  within  the  same."  Power  to  establish  courts  of 
law  was  granted,  to  prescribe  the  qualifications  of 
electors,  to  prescribe  crimes  and  their  punishments, 
to  organize  a  militia  and  to  commission  the  officers 
thereof. 

This  charter  was   framed  upon  the  most  liberal 


THE    COLONIAL   CHARTERS  43 

principles,  and  with  an  unselfish  regard  to  the  lib 
erties  and  prosperity  of  the  inhabitants,  and  in  con 
trast  with  some  others — and  especially  with  the 
nagging,  unfriendly  and  repressive  policy  generally 
pursued  by  the  English  kings  toward  the  colonies — 
illustrates  the  fitfulness  and  caprice  that  always  at 
tends  government  by  a  man. 

The  charter  of  Connecticut  was  granted  to  John 
Winthrop  and  others  (1662),  as  the  representatives 
of  settlers  already  located  and  who  had  organized  a 
provisional  government,  under  a  commission  from 
the  general  court  of  Massachusetts,  as  early  as  1636. 
The  grant  was  to  the  persons  named  and  "such  oth 
ers  as  now  are,  or  hereafter  shall  be  admitted  and 
made  free  of  the  company  and  society  of  our  col 
ony  of  Connecticut."  A  governor,  deputy  governor 
and  twelve  assistants  were  named  in  the  charter 
to  hold  office  until  a  day  named,  when  an  election 
by  the  people  of  their  successors  was  provided  for. 
Provision  was  made  for  a  general  assembly,  repre 
sentative  of  the  freemen  of  the  colony,  having  full 
legislative  powers,  subject  to  the  laws  of  England — 
power  was  given  to  constitute  courts,  to  organize  a 
militia,  and  generally  to  exercise  full  powers  of 
local  government.  It  was  expressly  declared  that 
all  English  subjects  who  should  go  to  or  inhabit 
within  the  colony,  and  their  children,  should  enjoy 
all  the  liberties  and  immunities  of  free  and  natural 
subjects  of  the  English  crown. 


44  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

Here  also,  as  you  will  observe,  popular  govern 
ment  was,  as  in  the  case  of  Rhode  Island,  fully  pro 
vided  for.  The  governor  and  all  other  officers  were 
chosen  by  the  people — the  king  is  in  the  back 
ground — the  parliament  is  seen  only  in  the  shadow 
of  those  vague  words  that  made  the  colonial  legis 
lation  subject  to  the  laws  of  England;  the  provis 
ion  being  "to  make,  ordain,  and  establish  all  man 
ner  of  wholesome  and  reasonable  laws,  statutes,  or 
dinances,  directions,  and  instructions,  not  contrary 
to  the  laws  of  this  realm  of  England." 

The  charter  of  1606,  granted  by  James  I  to  the 
Plymouth  Company,  and  to  the  London  companies, 
under  which  Virginia  was  colonized,  was  without 
any  concessions  or  guaranties  of  civil  rights  or  pow 
ers  to  the  colonists,  save  the  general  reservation  to 
the  settlers  of  all  "liberties,  franchises,  immunities, 
within  any  of  our  other  dominions  to  all  intents 
and  purposes  as  if  they  had  been  abiding  and  born 
within  this  our  realm  of  England."  A  local  coun 
cil,  to  consist  of  thirteen  members,  was  provided 
for  each  colony,  to  be  appointed  by  the  king,  which 
should  "govern  and  order  all  matters  and  causes 
which  shall  arise,  grow,  or  happen,  to  or  within  the 
same  several  colonies  according  to'  such  laws,  ordi 
nances  and  instructions,  as  shall  be,  in  that  behalf, 
given  and  signed  with  our  hand  or  sign  manual, 
and  pass  under  the  privy  seal  of  our  realm  of  Eng 
land."  A  home  council  (in  England),  also  to  be  ap- 


THE    COLONIAL    CHARTERS  45 

pointed  by  the  king,  and  to  consist  of  thirteen  per 
sons,  was  provided  for,  to  "have  the  superior  man 
aging  and  direction,  only  of  and  for  all  matters 
that  shall  or  may  concern  the  government,  as  well 
of  the  said  several  colonies,  as  of  and  for  any  other 
part  or  place,  within  the  aforesaid  precincts."  It 
will  be  seen  that,  in  the  last  resort,  everything  re 
lating  to  government  was,  under  this  charter,  re 
served  to  the  crown. 

Speaking  of  this  charter,  Mr.  Lodge  says:  "A 
more  awkward  scheme  could  hardly  have  been  de 
vised.  An  arbitrary  and  irresponsible  council  in 
America,  another  almost  equally  so  in  England,  the 
legislative  powers  reserved  to  the  king,  the  govern 
ing  body  a  commercial  monopoly,  and  the  chief 
principle  of  society  community  of  property,  togeth 
er  formed  one  of  the  most  ingeniously  bad  systems 
for  the  government  of  men  which  could  be  de 
vised." 

The  extension  of  this  charter,  in  1609,  gave 
somewhat  larger  powers  of  government  to  the  com 
pany.  It  established  "one  council  here  [in  Eng 
land]  resident,"  according  to  the  tenor  of  the  for 
mer  charter,  the  members  of  which  were  named. 

To  this  council  "here  resident,"  power  was  given 
to  appoint  the  governor  and  other  officers  and  min 
isters  and  to  make  laws  necessary  for  the  govern 
ment  of  the  said  colony.  The  council  was  to  be 
thenceforth  chosen  out  of  the  company  of  the  said 


46  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

adventurers  by  the  votes  of  the  greater  part  in  their 
assembly  for  that  purpose. 

The  charter  of  1611-12  provided  that  the  treas 
urer  and  company  of  adventurers  might  once  a 
week  or  oftener,  at  their  pleasure,  hold  a  court  and 
assembly  for  the  ordering  and  government  of  the 
plantation,  which  was  to  be  composed  of  five  per 
sons  of  the  council  and  fifteen  others  of  "the  gen 
erality"  of  said  company,  assembled  in  such  man 
ner  as  had  been  customary.  This  body  was  author 
ized  to  order  and  dispatch  "all  such  casual  and  par 
ticular  occurrences,  and  accidental  matters,  of  less 
consequence  and  weight,  as  shall  from  time  to  time 
happen,  touching  and  concerning  the  said  planta 
tion."  All  matters  of  greater  weight  and  impor 
tance  affecting  the  public  weal  and  general  good 
and  especially  the  manner  of  government  to  be  used 
was  committed  to  a  general  assembly  of  the  com 
pany  which  met  four  times  in  the  year  and  was  em 
powered  to  choose  persons  to  be  of  the  king's  coun 
cil  for  the  colony  and  to  nominate  and  appoint  such 
officers  as  were  requisite  for  the  government  of  the 
affairs  of  the  company  and  to  make  such  laws  and 
ordinances  for  the  good  of  the  plantation  as  were 
thought  requisite,  not  contrary  to  the  laws  of  Eng 
land.  (These  assemblies  met  in  England.)  In 
1624  the  charter  of  Virginia  was  annulled  by  quo 
warranto  in  the  king's  bench,  and  Virginia  became 
a  royal  colony. 


THE    COLONIAL   CHARTERS  47 

New  Hampshire  never  had  a  charter;  but  under 
the  royal  commission  for  the  government  of  the 
colony,  issued  in  1680,  the  civil  organization  con 
sisted  of  a  president  and  council  appointed  by  the 
king,  and  of  a  house  of  burgesses,  or  general  as 
sembly,  to  be  composed  of  inhabitants  of  the  col 
ony  elected  by  the  people;  but  all  questions  as  to 
the  qualification  of  electors  and  of  the  persons 
chosen  were  reserved  for  the  decision  of  the  presi 
dent  and  council.  The  judicial  powers  were  vested 
in  the  president  and  council,  and  all  laws  required 
their  sanction. 

The  charter  of  Carolina  (which  included  the  ter 
ritory  now  known  as  North  and  South  Carolina 
until  the  division  in  1732),  granted  in  1663  to  the 
Earl  of  Clarendon  and  others,  vested  in  the  pro 
prietors  full  power  to  make  laws  "with  the  advice, 
assent  and  approbation  of  the  freemen  of  the  said 
province,  or  of  the  greater  part  of  them,  or  of  their 
delegates  or  deputies,  whom  for  enacting  of  the 
said  laws,"  should  be  assembled  by  the  proprietors. 
All  customs  and  subsidies  in  the  province  were  to 
be  assessed  by  and  with  the  consent  of  the  major 
ity  of  the  free  people  there.  Carolina  became  a 
provincial  colony  in  1729  by  the  surrender  of  the 
charter  to  the  crown. 

In  the  grant  to  Lord  Baltimore  of  the  territory 
that  became  the  colony  of  Maryland,  made  in  1632, 
it  was  provided  that  the  proprietor  and  his  succes- 


48  VIEWS    OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

sors  might  make  laws  for  the  government  of  the 
colony  with  the  assent  and  advice  of  the  majority 
of  the  freemen  or  their  representatives,  and  the  gov 
ernment  put  into  force  consisted  of  a  governor, 
council  and  assembly.  In  the  latter,  at  the  begin 
ning,  every  freemen  was  entitled  to  appear.  Sub 
sequently  a  representative  system  was  adopted  and 
the  legislative  body  divided  into  two  chambers;  the 
lower  body  was  chosen  by  a  vote  of  the  freemen, 
and  the  upper  was  composed  of  a  council*  of  per 
sons  specially  designated  and  summoned  by  the  pro 
prietor. 

In  Pennsylvania,  a  proprietary  colony,  under  the 
wise  and  liberal  administration  of  William  Penn, 
representative  government  prevailed  from  the  be 
ginning.  In  a  prelude  to  his  frame  of  government 
he  declares  that  "any  government  is  free  to  the  peo 
ple  under  it  (whatever  be  the  frame)  where  the 
laws  rule  and  the  people  are  a  party  to  those  laws." 
The  charter  (1681)  provided  that  all  legislation 
should  be  with  the  consent  of  the  freemen  of  the 
province  or  of  their  delegates  who  should  be  called 
in  general  assembly.  A  veto  was  reserved  to  the 
king  within  five  years  of  the  passage  of  the  laws. 
The  appointment  of  all  officers  was  vested  in  the 
proprietor.  But  the  frame  of  government  agreed 
upon  between  Penn  and  the  freemen  of  the  prov 
ince,  in  1683,  provided  for  the  election  of  a  council 
consisting  of  seventy-two  members,  one-third  to  re- 


THE    COLONIAL    CHARTERS  49 

tire  each  year;  and  in  the  choice  of  this  body  the 
right  to  vote  was  extended  to  all  freemen  of  the 
colony. 

In  1701  a  "Charter  of  Privileges  for  Pennsyl 
vania"  was  granted  by  Penn,  with  the  approval  of 
the  general  assembly.  It  provided  for  a  yearly 
meeting  of  an  assembly  to  be  chosen  by  the  free 
men  of  the  province,  for  the  election  by  the  assem 
bly  of  its  own  officers,  and  gave  to  the  assembly 
the  power  to  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  its  mem 
bers,  and  to  sit  upon  its  own  adjournments.  The 
council  did  not  participate  in  legislation,  but  was  an 
advisory  board  to  the  governor — so  that  the  legis 
lative  body  was  single  and  not  bicameral,  as  the 
general  practice  was.  The  local  officers  were  to  be 
appointed  by  the  governor  upon  the  nomination  of 
the  freemen  of  the  district  in  which  the  officer  was 
to  serve. 

This  hasty  sketch  of  the  frames  of  government 
provided  for  these  colonies  will  serve  to  show  the 
measure  of  popular  government  stipulated  for  by 
the  king;  but,  as  I  have  said,  the  measure  exercised 
by  the  people  was  much  larger. 

Judge  Story  says  that  the  colonists  of  Massachu 
setts  "extended  their  acts  far  beyond  its  [the  char 
ter's]  expression  of  powers,  and  while  they  boldly 
claimed  protection  from  it  against  the  royal  de 
mands  and  prerogatives,  they  nevertheless  did  not 
feel  that  it  furnished  any  limit  upon  the  freest  ex- 


50  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT. 

ercise  of  legislative,  executive  or  judicial  functions/' 
And  this  was,  in  a  degree,  true  of  the  other  colo 
nies.  The  provision  in  the  charter  of  William  and 
Mary  to  Massachusetts,  for  a  representation  of  the 
freemen  in  a  general  assembly,  was  rather  a  recog 
nition  of  a  former  practice  than  a  new  grant.  For, 
as  early  as  1634,  the  colonists  of  Massachusetts  had 
demanded  and  secured  the  admission  of  delegates 
chosen  by  the  towns  to  the  general  court,  and 
Plymouth  had  a  representative  assembly  as  early  as 
1639. 

The  royal  colonies  felt  the  common  need  of  repre 
sentative  assemblies  that  should  participate  in  law- 
making,  and  were  not  slack  in  securing  them.  In 
Virginia,  in  the  year  1619,  the  governor  was  au 
thorized,  in  order  to  allay  popular  discontent,  to 
summon  representatives  and  when,  on  July  thirtieth  of 
that  year,  the  burgesses  chosen  by  the  people  as 
sembled  with  the  governor  and  his  council,  the  rep 
resentative  principle  had  its  first  exemplification  in 
America. 

Speaking  of  this  event  and  of  the  general  sub 
ject,  though  not,  as  you  will  see,  with  perfect  accu 
racy,  Governor  Hutchinson  of  Massachusetts  said: 
"It  is  observable  that  all  the  colonies  before  the 
reign  of  King  Charles  II,  Maryland  excepted,  set 
tled  a  model  of  government  for  themselves.  Vir 
ginia  had  been  many  years  distracted  under  the 
government  of  presidents  and  governors,  with  coun- 


THE    COLONIAL   CHARTERS  51 

cils,  in  whose  nomination  or  removal  the  people  had 
no  voice,  until  in  the  year  1620  a  house  of  bur 
gesses  broke  out  in  the  colony;  the  king,  nor  the 
grand  council  at  home  not  having  given  any  powers 
or  directions  for  it.  The  governor  and  assistants 
of  the  Massachusetts  at  first  intended  to  rule  the 
people;  and,  as  we  have  observed,  obtained  their 
consent  for  it,  but  this  lasted  two  or  three  years 
only;  and,  although  there  is  no  color  for  it  in  the 
charter,  yet  a  house  of  deputies  appeared  suddenly, 
in  1634,  to  the  surprise  of  the  magistrates,  and  the 
disappointment  of  their  schemes  for  power.  Con 
necticut  soon  after  followed  the  plan  of  the  Mas 
sachusetts.  New  Haven,  although  the  people  had 
the  highest  reverence  for  their  leaders,  and  for  near 
thirty  years  in  judicial  proceedings  submitted  to 
the  magistracy  (it  must  be  remembered,  however, 
that  it  was  annually  elected)  without  a  jury;  yet 
in  matters  of  legislation  the  people,  from  the  begin 
ning,  would  have  their  share  by  their  representa 
tives.  New  Hampshire  combined  together  under 
the  same  form  as  Massachusetts." 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  follow  any  further  the 
origin  and  development  of  representative  legislative 
assemblies  in  the  colonies — the  examples  given  will 
suffice.  The  important  fact  to  be  noted  is  that  such 
assemblies  had,  before  the  year  1700,  become  a 
part  of  the  constitution  of  every  colony  except 
Georgia,  and  of  that  colony  in  1754.  In  all  of  the 


52  VIEWS    OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT. 

colonies,  except  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware  (the 
latter  was  under  the  Penn  proprietorship,  but  had  a 
separate  assembly)  the  legislative  bodies  had  very 
naturally  assumed  the  form  of  an  upper  and  lower 
house  sitting  apart.  In  Massachusetts,  Connecticut, 
and  Rhode  Island,  both  the  council  and  the  assem 
bly  were  chosen  by  the  people — the  council  at  large, 
or  by  the  assembly,  and  the  members  of  the  assem 
bly  in  specified  towns  or  districts.  In  other  colo 
nies  the  council  was  appointed  by  the  crown,  while 
the  delegates  or  assemblymen  were  chosen  by  the 
people.  It  does  not  appear  that  the  question  of  the 
relative  merits  of  a  legislature  consisting  of  a  single 
body,  and  of  one  consisting  of  two  bodies  sitting 
apart  was  debated.  That  was  the  English  system, 
and  the  popular  or  delegate  body  was  generally  an 
addition  of  men  chosen  by  the  people  to  other  men 
chosen  by  the  crown  or  the  governor;  and  then, 
and  most  naturally,  of  a  popular  body  sitting  apart 
to  a  smaller  and  more  permanent  body  chosen  by  a 
different  method.  The  separate  concurrence  of 
each,  and  of  the  king  or  his  representative,  estab 
lished  the  law.  In  Pennsylvania  there  was  no 
struggle  for  a  representative  assembly — it  was  a 
part  of  the  frame  of  government.  Under  the  frame 
of  government  of  1682  the  legislative  power  was 
exercised  by  a  council  and  general  assembly  sitting 
apart;  the  first  proposing  and  framing  the  laws, 
and  the  latter  approving  or  rejecting  them.  The 


THE    COLONIAL    CHARTERS  53 

members  of  both  bodies,  however,  were  chosen  by 
the  people,  and  the  laws  ran:  "By  the  governor 
with  the  assent  and  approbation  of  the  freemen  in 
provincial  council  and  general  assembly."  The  new 
frame  of  government,  proposed  and  accepted  in 
1701,  provided  for  a  single  legislative  body,  or 
general  assembly,  and  the  laws  then  ran:  "By  the 
governor  with  the  consent  and  approbation  of  the 
freemen  in  general  assembly  met."  Penn  had  been 
a  student  of  the  new  theories  of  government. 
Writing  to  a  friend,  shortly  after  obtaining  his 
grant,  he  said:  "And  because  I  have  been  some 
what  exercised  at  times  about  the  nature  and  end  of 
government  among  men,  it  is  reasonable  to  expect 
that  I  should  endeavor  to  establish  a  just  and  right 
eous  one  in  the  province  that  others  may  take  ex 
ample  by  it." 

His  frames  of  government  are  instruments  most 
worthy  of  your  attention  and  study.  What  more 
discriminating,  more  comprehensive,  or  more  noble 
than  the  end  and  purpose  of  civil  government  as 
described  by  him :  "To  support  power  in  rever 
ence  with  the  people,  and  to  secure  the  people  from 
the  abuse  of  power;  that  they  may  be  free  by  their 
just  obedience,  and  the  magistrates  honorable,  for 
their  just  administration;  for  liberty  without  obe 
dience  is  confusion,  and  obedience  without  liberty  is 
slavery." 

Let  us  see  now  how  far  some  of  the  other  inci- 


54  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

dents  of  free  government  were  in  exercise  in  the 
colonies.  The  right  of  petition,  which  afterward 
came  into  such  prominence  in  the  relation  of  the 
colonies  to  the  crown,  was  generally  admitted,  in 
the  relation  of  the  local  legislative  assemblies  and 
other  authorities,  to  the  people.  An  early  law  of 
Massachusetts  guaranteed  to  every  one,  whether  set 
tler  or  foreigner,  slave  or  free,  the  right,  in  an  or 
derly  and  respectful  manner,  to  present  to  any  pub 
lic  court  or  assembly  any  complaint  or  petition.  So 
the  right  of  free  discussion  or  free  speech  was  an 
incident  of  these  popular  public  assemblages.  They 
were  gathered  for  discussion,  for  the  exchange  of 
views;  and  these  implied,  as  I  have  before  said,  a 
certain  equality  among  those  who  assembled — a  per 
fect  freedom  to  every  member  of  the  assembly  to 
express  by  voice,  as  well  as  by  vote,  his  view  of 
the  matters  to  be  resolved.  It  was  not  until  after 
these  rights  of  free  assembly  and  of  free  discus 
sion  had  been  long  in  practical  use  in  the  colonies 
that  the  origin  and  natural  and  legal  basis  of  them 
came  to  be  much  discussed.  They  were  used  as 
necessary  appliances  of  the  state  in  which  the  colo 
nists  found  themselves. 

A  system  of  small  civil  subdivisions — for  the  con 
trol  and  ordering  of  neighborhood  affairs — had  been 
established  in  all  the  colonies.  The  titles  by  which 
the  smaller  civil  subdivisions  were  known  were  va- 


THE    COLONIAL    CHARTERS  55 

rious;  but  they  were  quite  alike  and  quite  close  in 
their  resemblance  to  the  early  English  subdivisions. 
In  Virginia  these  subdivisions  were,  at  the  begin 
ning,  designated  as  cities,  hundreds  and  plantations. 
Some  of  these  hundreds  still  survive  as  local  desig 
nations.  Subsequently  the  divisions  came  to  be 
known,  in  some  colonies,  as  parishes  and  counties. 
The  designation  of  the  smaller  subdivisions  as  par 
ishes  was  common  in  the  southern  colonies,  while 
the  word  town  or  township  prevailed  in  the  north 
ern  colonies.  The  laying  out  of  highways,  the 
building  of  bridges,  of  prisons,  of  workhouses,  the 
relief  of  the  poor,  and  the  making  of  other  local 
regulations  were  committed  to  these  neighborhood 
boards.  In  some  of  the  colonies,  as  in  Pennsylva 
nia,  county  commissioners  were  given  the  power  to 
fix  rates  and  to  levy  taxes  for  county  purposes,  and 
the  townships  to  make  rates  for  the  support  of  the 
poor — an  arrangement  still  existing  in  many  of  the 
states.  The  general  court  of  Massachusetts,  in 
1636,  passed  a  law  reciting  that  "whereas  particu 
lar  towns  have  many  things  which  concern  only 
themselves,  and  the  ordering  of  their  own  affairs, 
and  disposing  of  business  in  their  own  towns/'  and 
granting  to  the  towns  power  to  make  orders  or 
laws  affecting  the  town,  not  repugnant  to  the  gen 
eral  laws,  to  choose  constables,  surveyors,  etc.  The 
practice  of  choosing  selectmen  in  the  towns  already 


56  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

prevailed.  A  law  quite  similar  had  been  adopt 
in  the  Plymouth  colony  a  few  years  before;  a: 
the  same  general  order  prevailed  in  Connecticut  a: 
throughout  the  New  England  colonies. 

Mr.  Frothingham  says,  speaking  generally  of 
the  colonies  and  of  the  local  subdivisions  therei 
"In  each  the  voters  chose  their  own  officers;  ea 
had  its  courts  of  justice;  each,  in  relation  to  its  j 
culiar  local  interests,  had  a  jurisdiction  as  wide 
its    territorial    limits.      In    this    way,    each    locali 
provided  for  the  concerns  of  social  comfort  and 
police,    of    education    and    of    religion.     This    wo 
was  never  done  for  the  people,  but  always  by  thei 
they  tested  their  own  decisions,   and  could  corn 
their  own  judgments." 

It  appears  then  that  at  and  before  the  breaki: 
out  of  the  revolutionary   war   the   constitutions 
civil  organizations  of  all  the  colonies  had  in  coi 
mon,  though  in  different  degrees — by  charter  or  i 
— these  elements: 

First.  They  were  subdivided  into  towns,  to\v 
ships  or  parishes,  and  these  smaller  and  prima 
subdivisions  were  combined  into  hundreds  or  cou 
ties,  according  to  convenience.  The  officers  of  the 
were  mostly  chosen  by  the  people,  and  were  charg 
with  the  administration  of  the  business  of  the  to\\ 
parish  or  county. 

Second.  A  colonial  legislature — generally  coi 
posed  of  two  bodies,  one  at  least  of  which  w 


THE.  COLONIAL    CHARTERS  57 

chosen  by  the  inhabitants — which  had  power  to 
make  laws,  not  inconsistent  with  the  laws  of  En 
gland,  and  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  king,  act 
ing  directly  or  through  his  representative.  In  some 
of  the  colonies  this  right  was  rested  on  the  char 
ters;  in  others  its  foundation  was  disputed,  the  peo 
ple  claiming  it  as  a  natural  right,  the  crown  hold 
ing  that  it  was  of  and  at  the  king's  pleasure.  The 
limitation  that  the  colonial  laws  were  not  to  be  in 
consistent  with  the  laws  of  England  was  not,  how 
ever,  construed  by  the  colonists  to  subject  colonial 
legislation  to  all  such  laws  as  might  thereafter  be 
made  by  parliament,  but  only  to  the  "primitive,  an 
cient  and  fundamental  laws  of  England,"  as  the 
phrase  ran  in  the  West  Jersey  concessions.  In 
New  England  the  assemblies  were  chosen  annually; 
in  the  other  colonies  the  term  of  office  varied,  being 
three  years  in  Maryland  and  seven  in  New  York. 

Third.  The  right  of  petition,  of  public  assem 
blage,  of  free  speech,  of  trial  by  jury,  of  habeas 
corpus,  were  claimed;  and  the  practice  of  them  was 
generally  allowed.  Judge  Story  says:  "It  was 
under  the  consciousness  of  the  full  possession  of 
the  rights,  liberties  and  immunities  of  British  sub 
jects,  that  the  colonists  in  almost  all  the  early  leg 
islation  of  their  respective  assemblies  insisted  upon 
a  declaratory  act,  acknowledging  and  confirming 
them.  And  for  the  most  part  they  thus  succeeded 
in  obtaining  a  real  and  effective  Magna  Charta  of 


58  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

their  liberties.  *  *  *  The  trial  by  jury  in  all  cases, 
civil  and  criminal,  was  as  firmly  and  as  universally  es 
tablished  in  the  colonies  as  in  the  mother  country." 

If  these  things  were  a  part  of  the  British  con 
stitution  they  were  also  a  part  of  the  civil  order 
in  each  British  colony.  They  were  not  all  at  all 
times  in  full  exercise  in  England  any  more  than  in 
the  colonies;  but  they  were  none  the  less  the  rights 
of  Englishmen;  and  the  colonists  were  English  sub 
jects. 

Fourth.  The  supreme  executive  powers  were 
vested  in  the  king,  and  were  exercised  by  a  gover 
nor  (though  in  New  Hampshire  he  was  styled 
president),  or  by  a  governor  and  council.  The  gov 
ernor  was  chosen  by  the  people  in  Connecticut  and 
Rhode  Island;  appointed  by  the  proprietors  in 
Pennsylvania,  Delaware  and  Maryland,  and  by  the 
crown  in  the  other  colonies.  The  powers  of  the 
governor  were  not,  either  in  law  or  usage,  uniform. 
In  most  of  the  colonies  he  had  power  to  summon 
and  prorogue  the  legislature — though  in  Pennsyl 
vania  his  right  to  prorogue  was  successfully  resisted 
by  the  assembly.  He  commanded  the  militia;  had 
a  veto  upon  legislation;  the  pardoning  power,  gen 
eral  or  limited;  and  the  appointment  of  judicial  and 
other  important  civil  officers.  He  stood  for  the 
king;  he  was  the  alien  element  in  the  government; 
and  his  lot  was  for  the  most  part  and  increasingly 
an  unhappy  one.  If  he  strove  to  please  the  people 


\ 
\ 


THE    COLONIAL    CHARTERS  59 

he  lost  the  favor  of  the  king;  if  he  was  subservient 
to  the  king,  he  was  pounded  with  remonstrances 
and  petitions,  and  opposed  by  the  assembly,  to 
which  he  must  look  for  supplies. 

Fifth.  A  judiciary  whose  judges  were  appoint 
ed  generally  by  the  governor  (but  in  Connecticut 
and  Rhode  Island  by  the  legislature)  ;  whose  sal 
aries  were,  with  a  few  exceptions,  fixed  by  the  leg 
islatures  and  paid  out  of  the  colonial  treasuries. 

Speaking  of  the  colonial  judiciaries,  Franklin 
said  they  were  formerly,  in  most  colonies,  "ap 
pointed  by  the  crown  and  paid  by  the  assemblies; 
that,  the  appointment  being  during  the  pleasure  of 
the  crown,  the  salary  had  been  during  the  pleasure 
of  the  assembly:  That  when  it  had  been  urged 
against  the  assemblies,  that  their  making  judges  de 
pendent  on  them  for  their  salaries  was  aiming  at 
an  undue  influence  over  the  courts  of  justice;  the 
assemblies  usually  replied  that  making  them  depend 
ent  on  the  crown  for  continuance  in  their  places, 
was  also  retaining  an  undue  influence  over  those 
courts,  and  that  one  undue  influence  was  a  proper 
balance  for  the  other;  but  that  whenever  the  crown 
would  consent  to  acts  making  the  judges  during 
good  behavior,  the  assemblies  would  at  the  same 
time  grant  their  salaries  to  be  permanent  during 
their  continuance  in  office.  This  the  crown  has, 
however,  constantly  refused." 

The  judgments  of  these  courts  were  final,  except 


6O  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

when  appealed  to  the  privy  council  of  the  king. 
They  were  domestic  courts.  The  judges  were  taken 
from  the  inhabitants.  Provision  for  an  appeal  in 
certain  cases  to  the  privy  council,  "to  the  king,"  or 
to  "the  king  in  council,"  was  expressly  made  in 
some  of  the  charters. 

Mr.  Story  says:  "In  a  practical  sense,  however, 
the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  the  king  in  council  was 
in  full  and  undisturbed  exercise  throughout  the  col 
onies  at  the  time  of  the  American  revolution;  and 
was  deemed  rather  a  protection  than  a  grievance." 
It  was  held,  however,  by  the  governor  in  council, 
holding  the  supreme  court  of  New  York,  in  1764, 
that  the  appeal  did  not  involve  a  re-examination  of 
the  facts  settled  by  the  verdict  of  a  jury;  that  the 
proceeding  was  rather  in  the  nature  of  a  writ  of 
error. 

Of  the  relation  of  the  colonies  to  each  other 
prior  to  the  revolution,  Mr.  Story  says :  "Each 
was  independent  of  all  the  others;  each,  in  a 
limited  sense,  was  sovereign  within  its  own  terri 
tory.  There  was  neither  alliance  nor  confederacy 
between  them.  *  *  *  They  were  known  only  as 
dependencies;  and  they  followed  the  fate  of  the 
parent  country  both  in  peace  and  war,  without  hav 
ing  assigned  to  them,  in  the  intercourse  or  diplo 
macy  of  nations,  any  distinct  or  independent  exist 
ence.  They  did  not  possess  the  power  of  forming 
any  league  or  treaty  among  themselves  which 


THE   COLONIAL   CHARTERS  6l 

should  acquire  an  obligatory  force  without  the  as 
sent  of  the  parent  state."  He  adds,  however,  that 
notwithstanding  this  they  were  "fellow-subjects,  and 
for  many  purposes  one  people." 

Every  colonist  had  a  right  to  inhabit  in  any 
other  colony;  and,  as  a  British  subject,  was  capable 
of  inheriting  land. 

A  writer  says  that  Chalmer's  researches  "con 
firm  and  illustrate  the  fact  that  the  colonists  lived 
in  the  enjoyment  of  a  more  real  autonomy  and  a 
do  as  you  please  enfranchisement  than  was  shared 
by  home  subjects." 

And  Sir  Richard  Sutton  said,  in  the  debate  on 
the  Boston  port  bill:  "If  you  ask  an  American 
who  is  his  master,  he  will  tell  you  he  has  none — 
nor  any  governor  but  Jesus  Christ." 

In  my  next  lecture  I  will  ask  your  attention  to 
some  of  the  legal  aspects  of  the  contentions  be 
tween  the  colonies  and  the  mother  country. 


LEGAL  ASPECTS   OF  THE   CONTROVERSY 
BETWEEN  THE  AMERICAN  COLO 
NIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN 

THIRD   LECTURE 
Delivered  at  Stanford  University,  March  19,  1894 

It  does  not  consist  with  my  purpose  to  pursue 
the  history  of  the  controversies  between  the  colo 
nies  and  the  mother  country;  but  a  glance  at  the 
legal  aspects  of  the  great  contentions  is  necessary. 

The  contest  was,  in  a  large  sense,  single  and 
common;  though  it  naturally  had  diverse  manifes 
tations,  at  different  times  and  in  the  different  col 
onies.  It  was  one  assault  breaking  upon  different 
salients  of  the  fortress  of  liberty.  As  a  debate  it 
was  conducted,  on  the  part  of  the  colonies,  with 
wonderful  moderation,  with  the  highest  courage, 
and  the  most  conspicuous  ability.  The  petitions, 
addresses,  and  public  papers  of  that  time,  proceed 
ing  from  American  sources,  are  not  excelled  in 
style  or  strength  by  any  state  papers  of  that  great 
historical  period.  In  the  earlier  and  middle  stages 

62 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN          63 

of  the  controversy  the  remonstrances  and  petitions 
were  full  of  expressions  of  the  most  devoted  loyalty 
to  the  English  king.  No  doubt  these  expressions 
were  sincere,  as  such  things  go.  The  conception  of 
a  free  republican  state  came  late  and  doubtingly 
into  the  minds  of  the  most  radical  of  the  colonial 
leaders,  and  could  not  be  sent  out  without  a  cloak 
until  war  was  flagrant.  Habit,  family  associations, 
a  proud  and  reverent  love  for  the  old  kingdom  and 
the  old  home,  and  the  need  of  a  powerful  protec 
tor  against  foreign  enemies,  kept  the  colonists  loyal, 
in  a  sense — much  as  those  who  deposed  James  and 
set  William  and  Mary  upon  the  throne,  under  the 
act  of  settlement,  were  loyal  Englishmen.  The  col 
onists  did  not  desire  separation;  they  were  more 
than  willing  to  remain  English  subjects;  but  they 
would  suffer  no  curtailment  of  the  traditional  rights  of 
Englishmen.  More  liberty,  rather  than  less,  was  the 
suggestion  of  their  experience  and  of  the  conditions 
that  surrounded  them.  There  has  been  much  de 
bate  as  to  the  sincerity  of  the  colonists  in  their  fre 
quent  protestations  of  loyalty,  in  view  of  their  fre 
quent  acts  of  resistance  to  the  royal  edicts.  But 
the  solution  is  easy;  they  were  loyal  to  an  English 
king  who  ruled  within  constitutional  limitations  and 
within  their  special  charters,  and  made  his  govern 
ment  subserve  the  right  ends  of  government;  but 
they  would  judge  these  matters  themselves.  The 
motto  "The  king  can  do  no  wrong"  implies  the 


64  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

amenability  in  English  law  of  his  councilors  and 
ministers  for  wrongs  done. 

This  view  was  thus  expressed  in  a  resolution  of 
the  congress  of  1775  (December  6th) :  "But  is 
this  traitorously  or  against  the  king?  We  view  him 
as  the  constitution  represents  him.  That  tells  us  he 
can  do  no  wrong.  The  cruel  and  illegal  attacks, 
which  we  oppose,  have  no  foundation  in  the  royal 
authority.  We  will  not,  on  our  part,  lose  the  dis 
tinction  between  the  king  and  his  ministers:  happy 
would  it  have  been  for  some  former  princes  had  it 
always  been  preserved  on  the  part  of  the  crown." 

Speaking  with  fine  satire  of  the  charge  that 
Americans  had  from  the  beginning  contemplated  in 
dependence,  Justice  Drayton,  of  South  Carolina,  in 
a  charge  to  the  grand  jury  in  1776,  said:  "There 
was  a  time  when  the  American  army  before  Boston 
had  not  a  thousand-weight  of  gunpowder — the 
forces  were  unable  to  advance  into  Canada,  until 
they  received  a  small  supply  of  powder  from  this 
country,  and  for  which  the  general  congress  expressly 
sent — and  when  we  took  up  arms  a  few  months  be 
fore,  we  begun  with  a  stock  of  five  hundred-weight! 
These  grand  magazines  of  ammunition  demonstrate, 
to  be  sure,  that  America,  or  even  Massachusetts  Bay, 
was  preparing  to  enter  the  military  road  to  independ 
ence!" 

And  George  Mason,  writing  in  1778,  says  of  the 
question  of  the  first  intention  of  the  colonists: 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN          65 

"Equally  false  is  the  assertion  that  independ 
ence  was  originally  designed  here.  Things  have 
gone  such  lengths,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  moonshine 
to  us  whether  independence  was  first  intended  or 
not,  and  therefore  we  may  now  be  believed.  The 
truth  is,  we  have  been  forced  into  it." 

The  inherited  English  reverence  for  the  king  had 
a  strong  hold  upon  the  minds  of  the  colonists.  The 
most  ardent  and  radical  of  the  colonial  leaders  held 
his  tongue  and  pen  under  a  severe  restraint  when 
he  spoke  of  the  king.  Such  was  the  reverence  of  the 
masses  of  the  people  for  the  crown  that,  almost  up 
to  the  time  of  the  spilling  of  blood,  denunciation 
of  the  king,  or  a  proposal  to  throw  off  their 
allegiance  to  him,  would  have  been  received  with 
general  disfavor.  When  the  congress  of  1774  as 
sembled,  the  general  thought  and  hopes  of  the 
people  ran  in  the  direction  of  a  peaceable  adjust 
ment  upon  the  basis  of  the  continued  sovereignty 
of  the  English  king.  They  did  not  complain  of 
the  king,  but  to  him — much  as  a  boy  might  com 
plain  to  an  absent  father  of  the  cruelties  of  his  tu 
tor.  There  were  historical  precedents  for  this 
strange  mingling  of  deference  and  resistance. 

The  men  of  Flushing  swore  fidelity  to  the  king 
and  to  William  of  Orange  as  his  stadt-holder  when 
they  were  in  arms  against  Alva,  the  king's  gover 
nor;  and  Henry  of  Navarre  wrote  to  Henry  III, 


66  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

"Thank  God,  I  have  beaten  your  enemies  and  your 
army." 

So  the  convention  of  deputies  of  New  Hamp 
shire,  in  January,  1775,  urged  the  training  of  the 
militia  for  the  defense  of  the  country  if  it  should 
"ever  be  invaded  by  his  majesty's  enemies/'  who 
were  his  majesty's  soldiers. 

The  colonists  were  quite  sincere  when  they  said 
they  did  not  aim  at  independence;  but  there  was 
never  a  time  when,  presented  as  the  alternative  of 
arbitrary  rule,  they  would  not  have  embraced  it. 
Barre,  in  his  famous  speech  upon  the  stamp  act,  in 
the  English  house  of  commons,  said  of  the  colo 
nists:  "The  people  there  are  as  truly  loyal,  I  be 
lieve,  as  any  subjects  the  king  has;  but  a  people 
jealous  of  their  liberties,  and  who  will  vindicate 
them  if  they  should  be  violated." 

In  an  address  to  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  Oc 
tober,  1774,  congress  said:  "Permit  us  to  be  as 
free  as  yourselves,  and  we  shall  ever  esteem  a  union 
with  you  to  be  our  greatest  glory  and  our  greatest 
happiness;  we  shall  ever  be  willing  to  contribute  all 
in  our  power  to  the  welfare  of  the  empire;  we 
shall  consider  your  enemies  as  our  enemies,  and 
your  interests  as  our  own.  But,  if  you  are  deter 
mined  that  your  ministers  shall  wantonly  sport  with 
the  rights  of  mankind — if  neither  the  voice  of  jus 
tice,  the  dictates  of  the  law,  the  principles  of  the 
constitution,  or  the  suggestions  of  humanity,  can  re- 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT   BRITAIN          67 

strain  your  hands  from  shedding  human  blood  in 
such  an  impious  cause,  we  must  then  tell  you  that 
we  will  never  submit  to  be  hewers  of  wood  or 
drawers  of  water  for  any  ministry  or  nation  in  the 
world." 

And  the  congress  of  1775  made  this  response: 
"We  are  accused  of  'forgetting  the  allegiance  which 
we  owe  to  the  power  that  has  protected  and  sus 
tained  us/  Why  all  this  ambiguity  and  obscurity 
in  what  ought  to  be  so  plain  and  obvious  as  that  he 
who  runs  may  read  it?  What  allegiance  is  it  that 
we  forget?  Allegiance  to  parliament?  We  never 
owed — we  never  owned  it.  Allegiance  to  our  king? 
Our  words  have  ever  avowed  it,  our  conduct  has 
ever  been  consistent  with  it." 

The  English  government  by  a  cabinet  was  not 
then  in  as  perfect  operation  as  now;  but  our  an 
cestors  were  not  pursuing  an  altogether  fanciful 
line  when  they  appealed  to  the  king  against  the 
ministry.  If  one  of  the  present  English  colonies 
should  suffer  oppression,  it  would  justly  and  strictly 
be  chargeable  to  Lord  Roseberry  and  not  to  the 
queen. 

It  may  be  well  here  to  say  a  further  word  as  to 
the  source  of  the  British  dominion  in  the  American 
colonies.  If  that  dominion  had  its  origin  in  discov 
ery  and  occupancy,  the  powers  of  the  crown  and 
the  rights  of  the  colonists  were  very  different  from 


68  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

what  they  would  have  been  if  the  dominion  had 
been  acquired  by  conquest. 

Mr.  Blackstone's  view  was  that  the  lands  in 
America  had  been  acquired  by  conquest;  and  the 
rules  as  to  such  colonies  he  states  thus:  "But  in 
conquered  or  ceded  countries,  that  have  already 
laws  of  their  own,  the  king  may,  indeed,  alter  and 
change  those  laws;  but,  till  he  does  actually  change 
them,  the  ancient  laws  of  the  country  remain,  un 
less  such  as  are  against  the  law  of  God,  as  in  the 
case  of  an  infidel  country."  While  as  to  newly 
discovered  lands  he  says:  "For  it  hath  been  held, 
that  if  an  uninhabited  country  be  discovered  and 
planted  by  English  subjects,  all  the  laws  then  in  be 
ing,  which  are  the  birthright  of  every  subject,  are 
immediately  there  in  force." 

Judge  Story,  in  his  commentaries,  satisfactorily 
refutes  this  view  and  shows  that  the  claim  of  En 
gland  and,  indeed,  of  all  the  European  governments, 
to  American  territory,  was  based  upon  discovery. 
This  was  true,  he  thinks,  even  of  the  Dutch  settle 
ments  of  New  York,  for  England  did  not  rest  her 
title  to  that  province  upon  conquest,  but  rather  the 
conquest  upon  an  antecedent  right  founded  upon 
discovery. 

The  Indians,  Judge  Story  shows,  were  not  a  con 
quered  people;  and,  if  they  were  such,  had  no  laws 
or  organized  government  which  could  be  assumed 
and  enforced  until  the  pleasure  of  the  king  was 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN          69 

known.  He  says :  "Even  in  case  of  a  conquered 
country  where  there  are  no  laws  at  all  existing,  or 
none  which  are  adapted  to  a  civilized  community, 
or  where  the  laws  are  silent,  or  are  rejected  and 
none  substituted,  the  territory  must  be  governed  ac 
cording  to  the  rules  of  natural  equity  and  right. 
And  Englishmen  removing  thither  must  be  deemed 
to  carry  with  them  those  rights  and  privileges  which 
belong  to  them  in  their  native  country." 

He  further  shows  that,  even  if  the  doctrine  of 
Blackstone  were  right  upon  general  principles,  it 
did  not  apply  to  the  American  colonies. 

That  we  may  understand  what  particular  rights 
were  claimed  by  the  colonists  as  Englishmen,  or 
under  their  charters,  and  the  view  taken  of  these 
claims  in  England,  I  quote  here  from*  some  of  the 
most  careful  and  notable  expressions  of  the  time. 
The  right  that  came  most  to  the  front  in  the  debate 
was,  as  I  have  said,  the  right  to  be  exempt  from 
taxes  not  voted  by  themselves;  but  it  was  soon 
found  that  this  involved  the  larger  question  as  to 
the  power  of  parliament  to  legislate  in  other,  or  in 
deed  in  any  matters,  affecting  the  colonies. 

The  prevailing  English  view  was  that  the  legis 
lative  power  of  parliament  extended  to  all  colonial 
matters  and  was  supreme.  This  view  was  ex 
pressed  in  a  declarative  act  in  these  unambiguous 
and  sweeping  sentences:  "All  his  majesty's  colo 
nies  and  plantations  in  America  have  been,  are,  and 


7O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

of  right  ought  to  be,  subordinate  to  and  dependent 
upon  the  imperial  crown  and  parliament  of  Great 
Britain,  who  have  full  power  and  authority  to  make 
laws  and  statutes  of  sufficient  validity  to  bind  the 
colonies  and  people  of  America,  subjects  to  the 
crown  of  Great  Britain,  in  all  cases  whatsoever." 

But  there  were  not  a  few  liberal  and  learned  En 
glish  statesmen  who  took  a  different  view  and  boldly 
opposed  the  oppressive  measures  of  the  ministry. 
The  power  of  the  parliament  to  tax  the  colonies 
was  denied  by  some  of  these. 

About  1680  the  Marquis  of  Halifax,  a  member 
of  the  privy  council,  in  opposing  arbitrary  measures 
against  the  colonies,  declared  that  "he  could  not 
agree  to  live  under  a  king  who'  should  have  it  in 
his  power  to  take  when  he  pleased  the  money 
which  he  (Halifax)  had  in  his  pocket." 

Mr.  Burke,  in  his  speech  on  the  taxation  of 
America  in  1774,  says,  speaking  of  the  contest  for 
liberty  in  England:  "They  took  infinite  pains  to 
inculcate,  as  a  fundamental  principle,  that  in  all 
monarchies  the  people  must  in  effect  themselves  me 
diately  or  immediately  possess  the  power  of  grant 
ing  their  own  money,  or  no  shadow  of  liberty  could 
subsist.  The  colonies  draw  from  you,  as  with  their 
life-blood,  these  ideas  and  principles.  Their  love  of 
liberty,  as  with  you,  is  fixed  and  attached  on  this 
specific  point  of  taxing.  Liberty  might  be  safe  or 
might  be  endangered  in  twenty  other  particulars, 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN          7! 

without  their  being  much  pleased  or  alarmed.  Here 
they  felt  its  pulse;  and,  as  they  found  that  beat, 
they  thought  themselves  sick  or  sound.  I  do  not 
say  whether  they  were  right  or  wrong  in  applying 
your  general  argument  to  their  own  case.  It  is  not 
easy,  indeed,  to  make  a  monopoly  of  theorems  and 
corollaries.  The  fact  is,  that  they  did  thus  apply 
those  general  arguments;  and  your  mode  of  gov 
erning  them,  whether  through  lenity  or  indolence, 
through  wisdom  or  mistake,  confirmed  them  in  the 
imagination  that  they,  as  well  as  you,  had  an  in 
terest  in  these  common  principles." 

Among  other  circumstances  which  had  brought 
the  colonists  to  the  views  of  liberty  held  by  them, 
Mr.  Burke  speaks  of  the  effect  of  education,  and 
says  that  in  no  country,  perhaps,  in  the  world  was 
the  law  so  generally  studied. 

The  Earl  of  Chatham,  speaking  on  the  bill  de 
claring  the  sovereignty  of  Great  Britain  over  the 
colonies,  said:  "My  position  is  this — I  repeat  it — 
I  will  maintain  it  to  my  last  hour — taxation  and 
•representation  are  inseparable;  this  position  is  found 
ed  on  the  laws  of  nature;  it  is  itself  an  eternal  law 
of  nature;  for  whatever  is  a  man's  own  is  abso 
lutely  his  own;  no  man  has  a  right  to  take  it  from 
him  without  his  consent,  either  expressed  by  him 
self  or  representative;  whoever  attempts  to  do  it  at 
tempts  an  injury;  whoever  does  it  commits  a  rob 
bery;  he  throws  down  and  destroys  the  distinction 


72  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

between  liberty  and  slavery.  Taxation  and  repre 
sentation  are  coeval  with  and  essential  to  this  con 
stitution."  In  the  same  speech  he  recites  the  fact 
that  the  palatinate  of  Chester  had  resisted  a  tax 
upon  the  ground  of  non-representation;  and,  upon 
their  petition,  the  king  had  allowed  their  plea.  "In 
short,  my  lord,"  said  he,  "from  the  whole  of  our 
history,  from  the  earliest  period,  you  will  find  that 
taxation  and  representation  were  always  united." 

Pitt,  in  his  speech  in  the  house  of  lords,  in  De 
cember,  1/75,  said:  "Let  the  sacredness  of  their 
property  remain  inviolate;  let  it  be  taxable  only  by 
their  own  consent,  given  in  their  provincial  assem 
blies,  else  it  will  cease  to  be  property."  And  again, 
in  the  same  speech,  he  said:  "Let  this  distinction 
then  remain  forever  ascertained.  Taxation  is  theirs, 
commercial  regulation  is  ours.  As  an  American, 
I  would  recognize  to  England  her  supreme  right  of 
regulating  commerce  and  navigation.  As  an  En 
glishman  by  birth  and  principle,  I  recognize  to  the 
Americans  their  supreme,  unalienable  right  to  their 
property;  a  right  which  they  are  justified  in  the  de 
fense  of,  to  the  extremity." 

A  few  quotations  now  setting  forth  the  Ameri 
can  view — chiefly  from  the  resolves  of  congress 
and  the  colonial  assemblies — will  enable  us  to  have 
a  clear  comprehension  of  the  great  issue  that  was 
about  to  be  set  down  for  trial. 

As  early  as  1680  we  have  a  voice  from  New  Jer- 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN          73 

sey  declaring  that  "it  was  a  fundamental  in  their 
constitution  and  government  that  the  king  of  En 
gland  could  not  justly  take  his  subject's  goods  with 
out  their  consent." 

Among  the  declarations  of  the  continental  con 
gress  of  1765  was  this:  "That  all  supplies  to  the 
crown,  being  free  gifts  of  the  people,  it  is  un 
reasonable  and  inconsistent  with  the  principles  and 
spirit  of  the  British  constitution,  for  the  people  of 
Great  Britain  to  grant  to  his  majesty  the  property 
of  the  colonists." 

In  the  address  of  this  congress  to  the  house  of 
commons  it  is  said  "that  the  parliament,  adhering 
strictly  to  the  principle  of  the  constitution,  have 
never  hitherto  taxed  any  but  those  who  were  therein 
actually  represented;  for  this  reason  we  humbly  ap 
prehend,  they  never  have  taxed  Ireland,  nor  any 
other  of  the  subjects  without  the  realm."  In  this 
congress  there  was  much  discussion  as  to  the  basis 
or  origin  of  the  rights  claimed  by  the  colonies,  and 
in  the  course  of  the  discussion  Christopher  Gads- 
den  said :  "A  confirmation  of  our  essential  and 
.common  rights  as  Englishmen  may  be  pleaded  from 
charters  safely  enough;  but  any  further  dependence 
on  them  may  be  fatal.  We  should  stand  upon  the 
broad  common  ground  of  those  natural  rights  that 
we  all  feel  and  know  as  men  and  as  descendants 
of  Englishmen.  I  wish  the  charters  may  not  en 
snare  us  at  last  by  drawing  different  colonies  to 


74  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

act  differently  in  this  great  cause.  Whenever  that 
is  the  case,  all  will  be  over  with  the  whole.  There 
ought  to  be  no  New  England  man,  no  New  Yorker, 
known  on  the  continent;  but  all  of  us  Americans." 
How  wisely,  how  nobly  spoken!  And  this  voice 
was  from  South  Carolina — "All  of  us  Americans." 
The  way  was  long  from  provincial  narrowness  and 
jealousy  to  a  broad  nationalism;  from  a  local  citi 
zenship,  of  which  the  world  took  no  notice,  to  a 
national  citizenship  that  boldly  challenged  the  world's 
deference.  But  in  1865 — just  one  hundred  years 
after  the  speaking  of  these  immortal  words — the 
hope  of  the  eloquent  South  Carolinian  bursts  into 
the  dawn;  and  to-day,  as  never  before,  we  are  "all 
of  us  Americans." 

Among  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  congress 
of  1774  (October  14),  was  the  following:  "Re 
solved,  4,  that  the  foundation  of  English  liberty, 
and  of  all  free  government,  is  a  right  in  the  peo 
ple  to  participate  in  their  legislative  council;  and, 
as  the  English  colonists  are  not  represented,  and 
from  their  local  and  other  circumstances,  can  not 
properly  be  represented  in  the  British  parliament, 
they  are  entitled  to  a  free  and  exclusive  power  of 
legislation  in  their  several  provincial  legislatures, 
where  their  right  of  representation  can  alone  be  pre 
served,  in  all  cases  of  taxation  and  internal  polity, 
subject  only  to  the  negative  of  their  sovereign,  in 
such  manner  as  has  heretofore  been  used  and  accus- 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN          75 

tomed.  But,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  and  a 
regard  to  the  mutual  interest  of  both  countries,  we 
cheerfully  consent  to  the  operation  of  such  acts  of 
the  British  parliament  as  are  bona  fide,  restrained 
to  the  regulation  of  our  external  commerce,  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  the  commercial  advantages  of 
the  whole  empire  to  the  mother  country,  and  the 
commercial  benefits  of  its  respective  members,  ex 
cluding  every  idea  of  taxation  internal  or  external 
for  raising  a  revenue  on  the  subjects  in  America 
without  their  consent/' 

It  seems  that  the  committee  was  hopelessly  di 
vided  on  the  question  of  the  powers  of  parliament 
and  that  the  terms  used  in  the  fourth  resolution,  as 
adopted,  were  accepted  as  a  compromise,  not  of 
opinions  but  of  phrases;  a  practice  quite  familiar 
in  modern  political  conventions.  Mr.  John  Adams 
suggested  the  declaration  that,  from  "the  necessity 
of  the  case"  the  colonists  "consented"  to  the  opera 
tion  of  laws  regulating  external  commerce,  exclud 
ing  "every  idea  of  taxation  internal  or  external  for 
raising  a  revenue  on  the  subjects  in  America  with 
out  their  consent."  The  one  side  could  argue  that 
this  was  a  consent  to  the  rightfulness  of  such  laws, 
and  the  other  that  the  laws  derived  their  rightful- 
ness  from  the  consent;  while  the  denial  of  every 
idea  of  taxation  left  the  one  side  free  to  say,  in  a 
particular  case,  that  taxation  was  not  the  idea,  but 
only  an  incident  of  the  law;  and  the  other  to  argue 


76  VIEWS    OF    AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

that  where  taxation  resulted  it  must  have  been  in 
tended. 

This  resolution  has  an  especial  significance  in  two 
particulars — first,  it  declares  that  the  colonies  could 
not  be  properly  represented  in  the  British  parlia 
ment;  and  second,  it  expresses  a  consent  to  the  gen 
eral  regulations  of  commerce  by  the  parliament, 
provided  every  idea  of  revenue  was  excluded.  The 
last  was  a  compromise  view — a  concession  in  the 
interests  of  peace;  but  the  binding  force  of  parlia 
mentary  navigation  acts  was  distinctly  put  upon  the 
consent  of  the  colonies. 

In  a  declaration  by  the  congress  of  1775  justify 
ing  resistance — after  enumerating  some  of  the  colo 
nial  grievances — it  is  said:  "But  why  should  we 
enumerate  our  injuries  in  detail?  By  one  statute 
it  is  declared  that  parliament  can  'of  right  make 
laws  to  bind  us  in  all  cases  whatsoever/  What  is 
to  defend  us  against  so  enormous,  so  unlimited  a 
power?  Not  a  single  man,  of  those  who  assume  it, 
is  chosen  by  us;  or  is  subject  to  our  control  or  in 
fluence;  but  on  the  contrary,  they  are  all  of  them 
exempt  from  the  operation  of  such  laws,  and  an 
American  revenue,  if  not  diverted  from  the  ostensi 
ble  purposes  for  which  it  is  raised,  would  actually 
lighten  their  own  burdens  in  proportion  as  they  in 
crease  ours." 

The  colonists  would  not  be  bound  by  acts  of  par 
liament  because  they  were  not  represented  there;  but 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT   BRITAIN          77 

would  they  have  accepted  representation  in  parlia 
ment  as  a  basis  of  settlement?  I  think  not.  The 
letter  of  appointment  and  instruction  from  the  as 
sembly  of  Massachusetts  to  the  delegates  of  the  col 
ony  to  the  congress  of  1765,  which  assembled  in 
New  York,  contained  these  paragraphs:  "If  it 
should  be  said  that  we  are  in  any  manner  repre 
sented  in  parliament  you  must  by  no  means  concede 
to  it;  it  is  an  opinion  which  this  house  can  not  see 
the  least  reason  to  adopt.  Further,  the  house  think 
that  such  a  representation  of  the  colonies  as  British 
subjects  are  to  enjoy,  would  be  attended  with  the 
greatest  difficulty,  if  it  is  not  absolutely  impracti 
cable,  and  therefore,  you  are  not  to  urge  or  consent 
to  any  proposal  for  any  representation,  if  such  be 
made  in  the  congress." 

In  speaking  of  the  English  opposition  to  the  sug 
gestion  that  the  difficulties  between  the  mother  coun 
try  and  the  colonies  might  be  obviated  by  admit 
ting  representatives  of  the  colonies  in  parliament, 
Doctor  Franklin  said:  "But  the  pride  of  this  peo 
ple  can  not  bear  the  thought  of  it,  and  therefore  it 
will  be  delayed.  Every  man  in  England  seems  to 
consider  himself  as  a  piece  of  a  sovereign  over  Amer 
ica,  seems  to  jostle  himself  into  the  throne  with  the 
king  and  talk  of  'our  subjects  in  the  colonies.' ' 

They  would  not  be  taxed  by  parliament,  because 
they  were  not  represented  in  parliament,  and  they 
did  not  seek  representation  in  parliament  because  it 


78  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

could  not  in  the  nature  of  things  be  adequate.  It 
would  have  been  delusive — no  better  practically  than 
the  then  prevailing  system  of  maintaining  colonial 
agents  in  London.  The  colonial  members  in  the 
house  of  commons  could  not  defeat,  and  their  pres 
ence  there  could  only  give  sanction  to  hostile  legisla 
tion.  Taxes  might  have  been  voted  without  the 
consent  of  a  single  representative  of  the  communi 
ties  from  which  the  levies  were  to  be  raised,  and 
by  the  votes  of  those  whose  burdens  would  have 
been  lightened  by  the  legislation.  The  grants  would 
still  have  been  by  the  people  of  Great  Britain  of 
the  property  of  the  colonists.  The  argument  of 
the  colonists  stated  in  full  was:  We  can  not  law 
fully  be  taxed  by  a  body  in  which  we  have  no  repre 
sentation.  We  are  not  represented  in  the  English 
parliament;  therefore  we  can  not  be  taxed  by  par 
liament.  We  can  not  in  the  nature  of  things  have 
any  real  representation  in  the  parliament — therefore 
we  will  be  taxed  only  by  our  colonial  assemblies. 
Our  forefathers  were  wise,  but  very  practical  men; 
not  mere  casuists  or  philosophers.  They  saw  that 
an  admission  of  the  power  of  the  parliament  to  tax 
them  involved  the  destruction  of  their  liberties  and 
the  confiscation  of  their  property — and  with  an  alert 
ness  and  courage  that  was  admirable  they  resisted. 
They  would  not  admit  the  tip  of  the  camel's  nose 
inside  the  tent.  They  maintained  with  much  learn 
ing,  and  with  convincing  force,  that  the  parliament 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN          79 

could  not  do  this  or  that — and  this  or  that  in 
cluded  pretty  much  every  act  that  affected  them  in 
juriously;  but  they  made  no  schedule  of  the  things 
parliament  might  do.  They  at  once  boldly  joined 
issue  with  the  parliamentary  declaration  that  it  was 
authorized  "to  bind  the  colonies  and  people  of  Amer 
ica  in  all  cases  whatsoever."  Possibly  there  were 
cases  in  which  parliament  might  legislate  for  them 
in  an  indirect  way;  but  they  would  not  attempt 
general  definitions;  they  would  deal  only  with  par 
ticulars — with  the  concrete  and  not  with  the  ab 
stract — they  would  see  the  proposed  statute  and  ad 
mit  or  exclude  it.  Just  what  the  powers  of  parlia 
ment  over  the  colonies  were  was  a  hard  question, 
and  is  still  a  hard  question  for  the  student  of  con 
stitutional  history.  '  There  seems  to  have  been  no 
safe  middle  ground  found  between  the  admission 
of  full  powers  on  the  one  hand,  and  a  total  denial 
of  any  on  the  other.  Satisfactory  English  prece 
dents  were  wanting.  That  taxes  were  grants  to  be 
freely  voted  by  those  who  were  to  pay  them, 
through  their  representatives,  was  an  established 
principle.  But  how  far  general  laws,  such  as  laws 
regulating  navigation  and  other  general  interests  of 
the  whole  kingdom,  might  be  made  for  the  colo 
nies  by  the  parliament  in  which  they  were  not  rep 
resented  was  not  clear.  It  turned  upon  the  ques 
tion,  how  far  the  principle  that  all  laws  derive  their 
sanction  from  the  consent  of  the  governed,  was  a 


8O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

part  of  the  English  constitution,  and  upon  the  fur 
ther  question,  whether  the  right  of  Englishmen  to 
have  a  voice  in  the  making  of  the  laws  that  were  to 
govern  them  was  possessed  by  the  colonists. 

Mr.  Story  says:  "In  respect  to  the  political  re 
lations  of  the  colonies  with  the  parent  country,  it 
is  not  easy  to  state  the  exact  limits  of  the  depen 
dency  which  was  admitted,  and  the  extent  of  sov 
ereignty  which  might  be  lawfully  exercised  over 
them,  either  by  the  crown  or  by  parliament." 

Of  the  authority  of  parliament,  he  says:  "In  re 
gard  to  the  authority  of  parliament  to  enact  laws 
which  should  be  binding  upon  them,  there  was  quite 
as  much  obscurity  and  still  more  jealousy  spreading 
over  the  whole  subject.  *  *  *  No  acts  of  par 
liament,  however,  were  understood  to  bind  the  colo 
nies  unless  expressly  named  therein. 

"But  it  was  by, no  means  an  uncommon  opinion 
in  some  of  the  colonies,  especially  in  the  proprie 
tary  and  charter  governments,  that  no  act  of  parlia 
ment  whatsoever  could  bind  them  without  their  own 
consent." 

Mr.  Story  says  that  after  the  passage  of  the  stamp 
act  the  subject  was  re-examined  in  the  colonies, 
especially  in  connection  with  the  declaration  by  par 
liament  of  an  absolute  power  of  legislation;  and 
that  many  of  the  leading  minds  "passed  by  an  easy 
transition  to  a  denial,  first,  of  the  power  of  tax- 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT   BRITAIN          8 1 

ation,  and  next,  of  all  authority  whatever  to  bind 
them  by  its  laws." 

He  quotes  James  Wilson,  of  Pennsylvania,  as 
saying  that  he  entered  upon  the  inquiry  "with  a 
view  and  expectation  of  being  able  to  trace  some 
constitutional  line  between  those  cases  in  which  we 
ought  and  those  in  which  we  ought  not  to  acknowl 
edge  the  power  of  parliament  over  us" ;  but  that  in 
the  prosecution  of  his  inquiries  he  became  convinced 
that  such  a  line  did  not  exist  and  that  there  could 
be  "no  medium  between  acknowledging  and  deny 
ing  that  power  in  all  cases." 

When  Governor  Hutchinson,  in  1773,  said  in  an 
address  to  the  general  court  of  Massachusetts  that 
he  "knew  of  no  line  that  should  be  drawn  between 
the  supreme  authority  of  parliament  and  the  total 
independence  of  the  colony,"  it  was  answered  by 
the  general  court  that  parliament  was  not  supreme 
and  that  "the  drawing  the  line  between  the  supreme 
authority  of  parliament  and  total  independence  was 
a  profound  question  and  not  to  be  proposed  without 
their  consent  in  a  general  congress." 

The  governor  undertook — and  with  some  success 
— to  point  out  the  many  illustrations  in  the  legisla 
tion  of  the  colony  of  the  recognition  of  the  validity 
and  force  of  acts  of  parliament.  Among  these  he 
mentions  the  settlement  of  the  crown  upon  William 
and  Mary  by  an  act  of  parliament,  and  the  accom- 


82  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

panying  act  of  parliament  by  which  oaths  of  alle 
giance  to  King  James  were  discharged  and  pro 
vision  made  for  oaths  to  King  William  and  Queen 
Mary. 

The  assembly,  replying  to  this  address  of  the  gov 
ernor,  argued  that  the  words  of  limitation  in  the 
charter,  upon  the  legislative  power  of  the  colonies 
— namely,  that  the  laws  made  should  not  be  re 
pugnant  to  the  laws  of  England — had  relation  to 
the  great  charter  and  other  laws  of  England  by 
which  the  lives,  the  liberties,  and  property  of  En 
glishmen  were  secured,  and  not  to  the  general  legis 
lation  of  parliament.  The  right  to  be  represented 
in  the  legislative  body  was  asserted  as  a  fundament 
al  principle  of  the  English  constitution,  and  one 
that  the  parliament  could  not  impair  or  disregard. 
The  particular  instances  cited  by  the  governor  of 
submission  by  the  colony  to  particular  acts  of  par 
liament  they  met  by  the  declaration  that  the  acces 
sion  of  William  and  Mary,  while  not  proclaimed  by 
an  act  of  the  colony,  was  based  upon  the  universal 
consent  of  the  people.  They  declared  that  "a  purely 
voluntary  submission  to  an  act,  because  it  is  highly 
in  our  favor  and  for  our  benefit,  is  in  all  equity 
and  justice  to  be  deemed  as  not  at  all  proceeding 
from  the  right  we  include  in  the  legislators,  that 
thereby  obtain  an  authority  over  us,  and  that  ever 
hereafter  we  must  obey  them  of  duty."  That  while 
"they  may  have  submitted,  sub  silentio,  to  some 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN          83 

acts  of  parliament,  that  they  conceived  might  oper 
ate  for  their  benefit,  they  did  not  conceive  them 
selves  bound  by  any  of  its  acts  which,  they  judged, 
would  operate  to  the  injury  even  of  individuals." 
Concluding,  they  said:  "We  think  your  excellency 
has  not  proved,  either  that  the  colony  is  a  part  of 
the  politic  society  of  England,  or  that  it  has  ever 
consented  that  the  parliament  of  England  or  Great 
Britain,  should  make  laws  binding  upon  us,  in  all 
cases,  whether  made  expressly  to  refer  to  us  or  not." 

In  the  notes  of  Mr.  Jefferson  on  the  debate  upon 
the  adoption  of  the  declaration  of  independence  he 
represents  John  Adams,  Lee,  and  others  who  favored 
the  adoption,  to  have  held  this  view  of  the  powers 
of  parliament:  "That,  as  to  the  people  or  parlia 
ment  of  England  we  had  always  been  independent 
of  them,  their  restraints  on  our  trade  deriving  effect 
from  our  acquiescence  only  and  not  from  any  rights 
they  had  of  imposing  them,  and  that  so  far  our 
connection  had  been  federal  only  and  was  now  dis 
solved  by  the  commencement  of  hostilities."  The 
declaration  itself  makes  no  direct  reference  to  par 
liament,  but,  in  the  schedule  of  the  unlawful  acts 
of  the  king,  refers  to  the  parliament  in  these  terms : 
"He  has  combined  with  others  to  subject  us  to  a 
jurisdiction  foreign  to  our  constitution,  and  unac 
knowledged  by  our  laws;  giving  his  assent  to  their 
acts  of  pretended  legislation. 

It  would  seem  that,  if  any  power  to  legislate  for 


84  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

the  colonies  was  possessed  by  parliament,  it  would 
include  the  power  to  establish  a  system  of  import 
duties,  common  to  them  all — for  this  was  a  subject 
that  colonial  legislation  could  not  adequately  deal 
with ;  and  yet  the  tea  tax  was  generally  resisted  in  the 
colonies  as  an  invasion  of  their  liberties. 

Mr.  Curtis,  in  his  work  on  the  Constitutional  His 
tory  of  the  United  States,  speaking  of  the  colonial 
congress  of  1774,  says:  "The  second  question  re 
lated  to  the  authority  which  they  should  allow  to 
be  in  parliament;  whether  they  should  deny  it  wholly 
or  deny  it  only  as  to  internal  affairs;  admitting  it 
as  to  external  trade;  and  if  the  latter,  to  what  ex 
tent  and  with  what  restriction.  It  was  soon  felt 
that  this  question  of  the  authority  of  parliament  was 
the  essence  of  the  whole  controversy.  Some  denied 
it  altogether.  Others  denied  it  as  to  every  species 
of  taxation;  while  others  admitted  it  to  extend  to 
the  regulation  of  external  trade,  but  denied  it  as  to 
all  internal  affairs."  He  adds  that  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  right  of  regulating  the  trade  of  the 
whole  country  could  not  be  well  exercised  by  the 
separate  colonies  the  alternative  was  either  to  set 
up  an  American  legislature  that  could  regulate  such 
trade  or  to  give  the  power  to  parliament. 

The  congress,  he  says,  determined  to  do  the  lat 
ter,  thinking  that  they  could  limit  the  admission  by 
denying  that  the  power  extended  to  taxation  and  ad 
mitting  it  only  so  far  as  was  necessary  to  regulate  the 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN          85 

external  trade  of  the  colony  for  the  common  benefit 
of  the  whole  empire.  "They  grounded  this  conces 
sion,"  he  says,  "  'upon  the  necessities  of  the  case' 
and  'upon  the  mutual  interests  of  both  countries' ' 
— meaning  by  this  expression  to  assert  that  all  legis 
lative  control  over  the  external  and  internal  trade 
of  the  colonies  belonged  of  right  to  the  colonies 
themselves. 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  any  theory  of  the  re 
lation  of  the  colonies  to  the  mother  country  that 
will  support  the  pretentions  and  resistance  of  the 
colonies  throughout,  except  that  which  denies  in  toto 
the  power  of  the  parliament  to  legislate  for  the  col 
onies.  If  the  relation  was  as  described  in  the  de 
bate  upon  the  declaration  of  independence,  from 
which  I  have  quoted,  and  by  Franklin — a  federal 
one  like  that  of  England  and  Scotland  before  the 
union — then  the  British  parliament  had  no  authority 
to  legislate  for  the  colonies.  Yet  it  is  certain  that 
many  acts  of  parliament  not  involving  taxation  or 
revenues  were  recognized  in  the  colonies — as  an  il 
lustration,  the  act  of  1766  forbidding  the  issue  of 
legal  tender  paper  by  the  colonies. 

In  an  essay  by  a  Virginian,  published  in  London 
in  1701,  the  uncertainty  of  the  law  in  the  colonial 
age  is  thus  described:  "It  is  a  great  unhappiness 
that  no  one  can  tell  what  is  law  and  what  is  not  in 
the  plantations.  Some  hold  that  the  law  of  England 
is  chiefly  to  be  respected,  and,  where  that  is  de- 


86  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

ficient,  the  laws  of  the  several  colonies  are  to  take 
place;  others  are  of  opinion  that  the  laws  of  the  col 
onies  are  to  take  the  first  place,  and  that  the  law 
of  England  is  of  force  only  where  they  are  silent; 
others  there  are  who  contend  for  the  laws  of  the 
colonies,  in  conjunction  with  those  that  were  in 
force  in  England  at  the  first  settlement  of  the  colo 
nies,  and  lay  down  that  as  the  measure  of  our  obe 
dience,  alleging  that  we  are  not  bound  to  observe 
any  late  acts  of  parliament  in  England  except  such 
only  where  the  reason  of  the  law  is  the  same  here 
that  it  is  in  England.  But,  this  leaving  too  great 
a  latitude  to  the  judge,  some  others  hold  that  no 
late  act  of  the  parliament  of  England  do  bind  the 
plantations,  but  those  only  wherein  the  plantations 
are  particularly  named.  Thus  are  we  left  in  the 
dark  in  one  of  the  most  considerable  points  of  our 
rights;  and,  the  case  being  so  doubtful,  we  are  too 
often  obliged  to  depend  upon  the  crooked  cord  of 
a  judge's  discretion  in  matters  of  the  greatest  mo 
ment  and  value." 

Perhaps  the  following  is  a  fair  summary  of  the 
colonial  view,  just  prior  to  the  revolution,  as  to 
the  force  of  English  statute  law  in  the  colonies : 

First,  the  general  statutes  enacted  before  the  insti 
tution  of  any  government  in  the  respective  colonies 
were  of  continued  obligation  there,  so  far  as  they 
were  applicable.  This  upon  the  principle  that  such 
laws  were  enacted  by  parliaments  in  which  the  col- 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN          87 

onists,  being  then  residents  of  England,  were  rep 
resented. 

Second,  that  no  later  act  of  parliament  had  any 
inherent  validity  in  the  colonies;  but  that  the  su 
preme  legislative  power  was  vested  in  the  colonial 
legislature. 

Certainly  this  is  the  view  of  the  declaration  of 
independence.  The  debate  that  preceded  the  formu 
lation  and  general  adoption  of  this  view  was  long 
and  heated.  Particular  acts  of  parliament  were  im 
peached  on  narrow  grounds;  but  there  was  no  hold 
ing  ground  short  of  the  full  denial  of  the  power  of 
parliament  to  legislate  for  the  colonies.  The  par 
liament  was  not  a  representative  body  as  to  the  colo 
nies;  and  a  system  which  recognized  the  right  of 
parliament  to  legislate  for  the  colonies  was  not  a 
representative  system  of  government.  A  just  colo 
nial  system  that  should  preserve  by  suitable  limita 
tions  the  imperial  and  general  powers  of  parliament 
and  reconcile  them  with  free  institutions  in  the  col 
onies  was  not  possible  to  that  generation  of  English 
men;  and  a  system  of  parliamentary  government 
without  representation  and  without  agreed  limita 
tions  was  impossible  to  that  generation  of  Ameri 
cans. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  very  many  of  the  griev 
ances,  catalogued  in  the  declaration  of  independence, 
do  not  involve  questions  affecting  the  constitutional 
or  charter  rights  of  the  colonies,  but  rather  bad  and 


88  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

vindictive  administration,  and  so  a  violation  of  nat 
ural  rights.  The  English  government  in  the  colo 
nies,  as  administered,  subverted  the  true  purposes 
of  government,  namely,  to  secure  to  the  people  the 
enjoyment  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happi 
ness.  It  was  not  unlawful  for  the  king  to  refuse 
his  assent  to  laws,  or  to  prorogue  an  assembly,  or 
perhaps  to  fix  another  than  the  usual  place  for  its 
assembling.  But  when  these  things  were  done,  not 
in  the  exercise  of  a  just  discretion,  but  vexatiously 
to  deprive  the  people  of  their  rights  or  to  coerce 
them  into  a  surrender  of  them — to  punish  them  for 
things  lawfully  done — the  executive  power  was 
abused.  This  power  was  not  to  be  directed  by  whim 
or  malice;  but  like  all  other  forms  of  government, 
for  the  public  welfare.  Protection  was  the  condi 
tion  of  allegiance;  when  the  existing  government  did 
not  protect,  the  natural  right  became  the  supreme 
law.  The  resistance  made  by  the  colonies  to  the 
stamp  tax,  the  tea  tax,  and  other  assertions  of  the 
powers  of  parliament,  naturally  brought  on  a  con 
flict  with  the  king  and  his  governors,  and  this  con 
flict  marched  in  the  familiar  and  inevitable  lines — 
edict  and  proclamation,  thundered  against  the  town 
meeting  and  the  assembly.  The  solitary  and  power 
less  civil  governor  was  reinforced  by  ships  and  sol 
diers,  and  the  town  meeting  became  a  training 
band — it  only  remained  that  these  should  meet  and 
war  was  flagrant. 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN          89 

But  there  were  some  other  constitutional  rights 
that  were  invaded.  The  right  to  transport  persons 
accused  of  crime  to  England  for  trial  was  asserted 
by  the  crown.  The  English  cabinet  issued  orders 
directing  Governor  Barnard,  of  Massachusetts,  to 
prosecute  an  inquiry  into  the  conduct  of  some  of 
the  popular  leaders  in  Massachusetts  with  a  view  to 
transporting  them  to  be  tried  for  their  lives,  under 
the  pretended  authority  of  a  statute  of  Henry  VIII. 
In  1772  royal  instructions  were  issued  to  the  gov 
ernor  of  Rhode  Island  to  organize  a  commission  to 
inquire  into  the  facts  connected  with  the  burning  of 
the  royal  schooner  "Gaspee."  The  governor  was  di 
rected  by  the  commission  to  arrest  the  parties  and 
to  send  them  with  the  witnesses  upon  a  naval  ves 
sel  to  England  for  trial.  The  colonial  assembly, 
upon  the  appeal  of  the  governor  and  Chief  Justice 
Hopkins,  referred  the  matter  to  the  discretion  of 
the  chief  justice,  who  declared  that  he  would  not 
give  an  order  to  arrest  any  person  for  transporta 
tion  to  England  for  trial.  The  commission,  in  its 
report,  condemned  the  conduct  of  the  commander  of 
the  "Gaspee,"  and  after  much  passion  had  been  ex 
cited  by  this  high-handed  invasion  of  the  right  of 
trial,  the-  matter  was  dropped.  The  result  of  these 
attempts  was  widespread  excitement  and  indignation 
in  the  colonies;  The  Virginia  house  of  burgesses, 
on  the  sixteenth  of  May,  1769,  passed  a  resolution  de 
claring  that  "all  trials  for  treason,  misprision  of 


QO  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

treason,  or  for  any  felony  or  crime  whatsoever,  com 
mitted  and  done  in  his  majesty's  said  colony  and 
dominion,  by  any  person  or  persons  residing  therein, 
ought  of  right  to  be  had  and  conducted  in  and  be 
fore  his  majesty's  courts,  held  within  his  said  col 
ony,  according  to  the  fixed  and  known  course  of 
proceeding,"  and  that  the  "sending  such  person  or 
persons  to  places  beyond  the  sea  t®  be  tried  is  highly 
derogatory  of  the  rights  of  British  subjects,  as 
thereby  the  inestimable  privilege  of  being  tried  by  a 
jury  from  the  vicinage,  as  well  as  the  liberty  of 
summoning  and  producing  witnesses  on  such  trial, 
will  be  taken  away  from  the  party  accused. " 

In  1770  the  privy  council  inaugurated  a  series  of 
royal  instructions  which  ruthlessly  disregarded  not 
only  the  usages  of  the  colonies  but  directly  set  at 
naught  the  provisions  of  the  colonial  charters.  They 
proceeded  upon  the  theory  that  these  royal  instruc 
tions  had  the  force  of  law  and  practically  asserted 
an  unlimited  and  arbitrary  power  in  the  crown. 

In  1772  Governor  Hutchinson,  of  Massachusetts, 
under  instructions  from  the  crown,  refused  to  re 
ceive  his  salary  from  the  legislature,  and  the  judges' 
salaries  were  also  ordered  to  be  paid  out  of  the 
crown  treasury.  This  was  regarded  as  making  these 
officers  dependents  of  the  crown  and  freeing  them 
from  that  restraint  which  the  power  to  vote  their 
salaries  in  the  general  court  imposed.  This  "in 
definite,  imperious  and  mysterious,"  as  Mr.  Frothing- 


AMERICAN   COLONIES  AND  GREAT  BRITAIN          gi 

ham  calls  it,  assertion  of  the  royal  prerogative  seemed 
to  put  every  right  in  jeopardy. 

The  passage  of  laws  vesting  the  nomination  of 
the  council  in  Massachusetts  in  the  crown,  investing 
the  governor  with  the  power  to  appoint  and  remove 
judges  of  the  inferior  courts  and  other  minor  officers, 
and  the  governor  and  council  with  power  to  ap 
point  sheriffs  who  were  to  select  the  juries,  forbid 
ding  town  meetings  except  for  the  choice  of  officers, 
without  the  permission  of  the  governor,  and  pro 
viding  for  the  transportation  of  offenders  and  wit 
nesses  to  other  colonies  or  to  England  for  trial,  was 
a  complete  and  undeniable  expression  of  the  pur 
pose  of  the  English  government  to  overthrow  not 
only  local  government,  but  liberty,  in  the  colonies. 

It  was  said,  even  in  the  house  of  lords,  that 
these  acts  invested  "the  governor  and  council  with 
powers  with  which  the  British  constitution  had  not 
trusted  his  majesty  and  his  privy  council'*;  and 
that  "the  lives,  liberties  and  properties  of  the  sub 
ject  were  put  into  their  hands  without  control." 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS   AT   UNION   AND   THE 
UNION  DE  FACTO 

FOURTH  LECTURE 
DeliTered  at  Stanford  University,  April  .2,  1894 

I  desire  to  call  your  attention  first  to  some  of 
the  efforts  that  were  made  to  effect  a  union  of  the 
English  colonies  in  America,  upon  the  basis  of  a 
continued  allegiance  to  the  British  crown. 

The  first  American  confederation  was  of  certain 
of  the  New  England  colonies,  and  took  form  in 
1643.  At  that  time  New  York,  a  Dutch  province, 
intervened  between  New  England  and  the  middle 
and  southern  English  colonies,  while  Canada,  a 
French  possession  on  the  north,  was  a  special 
menace  to  New  England.  Serious  disputes  as  to 
settlements  and  boundaries  had  arisen  with  the 
Dutch;  and  the  purpose  of  the  French  to  restrict, 
if  not  to  subdue,  the  English  colonies,  was  not  con 
cealed.  The  Indians,  especially  the  Narragansetts,  a 
near  and  strong  tribe,  had  become  unfriendly  and 
were  threatening  the  settlements.  The  dangers  were 

92 


EARLY   ATTEMPTS   AT    UNION  Q3 

common  and  imminent,  and  the  conditions  out  of 
which  they  grew  lasting.  Not  one  campaign,  but 
many;  not  the  foreseen,  but  the  unforeseen  also, 
must  be  provided  for.  England  was  wasted  by  civil 
-war;  and  the  king  was  thinking  of  his  crown,  not 
of  his  provinces.  His  military  resources  were  over 
taxed  in  the  defense  of  his  prerogative  at  home  and 
of  his  life.  Neither  English  money  nor  English 
troops,  neither  English  direction  nor  leadership  was 
available  to  the  New  England  colonies.  The  feder 
ation  was  as  natural  and  reasonable  as  a  block  house 
in  a  frontier  village.  The  articles  of  union  were 
subscribed  by  the  representatives  of  Massachusetts, 
New  Plymouth,  Connecticut  and  New  Haven. 
Rhode  Island,  with  Connecticut  and  New  Haven, 
had  three  years  before  united  in  a  joint  letter  to  the 
general  court  of  Massachusetts,  suggesting  a  con 
federation;  but  poor  little  Rhode  Island,  upon  the 
spiteful  objection  of  Massachusetts,  was  not  allowed 
to  enter  the  confederation  that  was  formed.  These 
articles  of  union  are  of  great  interest;  but  we  have 
time  to  notice  only  a  few  of  their  most  important 
provisions.  A  common  name  was  assumed:  "The 
United  Colonies  of  New  England."  The  things  that 
are  not  said  in  these  articles  are  quite  as  noticeable 
as  the  things  that  are  said.  No  reference  whatever 
is  made  to  the  crown,  save  by  this  recital  in  the 
preamble : 

"And  seeing  by  these  sad  distractions  in  England, 


94  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

which  they  have  heard  of,  and  by  which  they  know 
we  are  hindered  from  that  humble  way  of  seeking" 
advice  or  reaping  those  comfortable  fruits  of  pro 
tection  which  at  other  times  we  might  well  expect." 
Neither  the  taking  effect  of  the  articles  nor  the 
continuance  of  the  confederation  is  made  depend 
ent  upon  the  consent  of  the  king.  The  confedera 
tion  was  not  limited  to  the  exigency  described  in 
the  preamble,  but  was  expressly  declared  to  be  per 
petual.  It  was  "for  mutual  help  and  strength  in  all 
our  future  concernments."  The  league  was  described 
as  "a  firm  and  perpetual"  one;  and,  in  the  twelfth 
and  last  article,  it  is  called  "this  perpetual  confeder 
ation."  It  was  instituted  for  "offense  and  defense, 
mutual  advice  and  succor,  upon  all  just  occasions; 
both  for  preserving  and  propagating  the  truth  and 
liberties  of  the  gospel,  and  for  their  own  mutual 
safety  and  welfare."  If  any  one  of  the  colonies 
should  be  invaded  "by  any  enemy  whomsoever"  the 
other  members  of  the  confederation  were  required 
forthwith  to  send  aid  to  the  "confederate  in  dan 
ger."  The  expenses  of  the  confederation  were  ap 
portioned.  Its  affairs  were  to  be  managed  by  two 
commissioners  from  each  colony,  who  were  to  bring 
from  their  respective  general  courts  full  power  "to 
hear,  examine,  weigh  and  determine  all  affairs  of 
our  war  or  peace,  leagues,  aids,  charges  and  num 
bers  of  men  for  war,  division  and  spoils  and  what 
soever  is  gotten  by  conquest,  receiving  of  more 


EARLY   ATTEMPTS   AT   UNION  95 

confederates  for  plantations  into  combination  with 
any  of  the  confederates,  and  all  things  of  like  na 
ture  which  are  the  proper  concomitants  of  conse 
quence  of  such  a  confederation,  for  amity,  offense 
and  defense."  There  was  to  be  no  intermeddling 
with  the  government  of  any  of  the  jurisdictions, 
which  by  the  third  article  is  preserved  entirely  to 
themselves.  Six  of  the  eight  commissioners  were 
empowered  to  determine  any  matter  presented;  but 
if  six  did  not  agree,  then  the  matter  was  to  be  re 
ferred  to  the  general  courts  of  the  confederated  col 
onies.  The  commissioners  were  to  meet  once  every 
year;  provision  was  made  for  extraordinary  sessions 
and  the  places  of  meeting  designated.  No  colony 
was  allowed  to  declare  or  undertake  a  war,  except 
upon  sudden  exigency,  without  the  consent  of  the 
commissioners  or  of  six  of  them. 

But  the  purposes  of  the  confederation  were  not, 
as  I  have  said,  limited  by  the  occasion  which  sug 
gested  it,  viz.,  the  unfriendly  and  hostile  attitude  of 
their  neighbors.  The  commission  was  required  by 
the  eighth  article  "to  frame  and  establish  agree 
ments  and  orders  in  general  cases  of  a  civil  nature 
wherein  all  the  plantations  are  interested  for  pre 
serving  peace  among  themselves  and  preventing  as 
much  as  may  be  all  occasions  of  war  or  difference 
with  others,  as  about  the  free  and  speedy  passage 
of  justice  in  every  jurisdiction,  to  all  the  confeder 
ates  equally  as  their  own,  receiving  those  that  re- 


96  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

move  from  one  plantation  to  another  without  due 
certificates."  Provision  was  also  made  for  the  ren 
dition  of  servants  and  of  prisoners  fleeing  from 
one  jurisdiction  into  another.  The  annexation,  by 
royal  decree,  of  New  Haven  to  Connecticut  extin 
guished  one  of  the  parties  to  this  compact  of  gov 
ernment;  but  the  agreement  was  revised  and  con 
tinued  as  a  league  of  three  colonies,  with  occasional 
meetings  of  the  commissioners,  until  1684,  when  the 
charter  of  Massachusetts  was  annulled.  The  united 
colonies,  through  the  commissioners,  exercised  the 
sovereign  power  of  war  and  peace,  conducted  ne 
gotiations  with  the  Indians,  the  French  and  the 
Dutch,  adjusted  a  boundary  dispute  between  New 
Haven  and  New  Netherland,  and  exercised  the 
highest  powers  of  government;  and  by  this  early 
experiment  confirmed  the  opinion  of  the  necessity 
and  usefulness  of  a  union  of  the  colonies.  The 
powers  of  the  commissioners  under  this  confedera 
tion  were  quite  similar  to  the  powers  of  the  con 
gress  under  the  later  confederation  of  the  thirteen 
colonies.  Both  were  leagues  of  friendship  insti 
tuted  for  the  general  welfare  and  defense.  The 
provision  that  no  colony  should  engage  in  war,  with 
out  the  consent  of  the  others,  except  upon  an  exi 
gency,  was  quite  like  the  article  of  the  later  con 
federation  upon  the  same  subject.  The  New  En 
gland  league  has  a  suggestion  also  of  the  provision 
of  the  federal  constitution  that  the  citizens  of  each 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS  AT  UNION:          97 

state  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  im 
munities  of  the  citizens  of  the  several  states,  and 
of  the  provisions  for  the  rendition  of  criminals  and 
fugitives  from  labor.  The  provision  that  no  mem 
bers  should  be  admitted  to  the  confederation,  nor 
any  other  plantation  be  received  by  any  of  the 
united  colonies,  nor  any  two  of  the  colonies  united 
in  one  jurisdiction  without  the  consent  of  the  rest, 
is  quite  suggestive  of  section  3  of  article  IV  of  the 
constitution,  which  provides  that  new  states  may  be 
admitted  by  congress,  but  that  no  new  states  shall 
be  formed  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any  other 
state  nor  by  the  conjunction  of  two  states  or  parts 
of  states  without  the  consent  of  congress.  An  equal 
voice  was  given  to  the  colonies,  in  the  joint  meet 
ings,  though  they  differed  so  widely  in  population 
and  wealth,  Massachusetts  having  fifteen  thousand 
out  of  an  aggregate  population  of  twenty-four  thou 
sand.  This  plan  of  representation  was  followed  in 
the  congress  of  1774,  passed  into  the  articles  of  con 
federation  and  continued  to  be  used  until  the  adop 
tion  of  the  national  constitution.  The  contest  that 
afterward  became  so  threatening  between  the  larger 
and  the  smaller  colonies  had  its  earliest  mani 
festation  in  this  earliest  confederation.  The  efforts 
of  Massachusetts  to  exert  more  than  the  prescribed 
influence  in  the  New  England  confederation  was 
sharply  resented  by  the  smaller  colonies. 

The    confederacy    was — not    unnaturally,    and    in 


98  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

spite  of  the  loyal  protestations  of  the  colonial  au 
thorities — regarded  by  the  crown  as  a  movement 
full  of  danger  to  the  royal  authority.  The  commis 
sioners  of  Charles  II  arraigned  the  confederation  as 
illegal,  holding  that  there  was  no  right  conferred 
upon  any  of  the  colonies  by  charter  "to  incorpo 
rate  with  the  other  colonies,  nor  to  exercise  any 
power  by  that  association";  both  of  these  powers  be 
longing  to  the  king's  prerogative.  The  answer  of 
the  Massachusetts  general  court  declared  that  this 
charge  was  "contrary  to  the  light  of  reason  that  al 
lows  all  whose  journey's  end  is  the  same  and  whose 
way  lies  together  to  combine  for  their  mutual  help 
in  all  things  common  and  just,  without  the  least 
suspicion  of  taking  upon  them  any  usurped  au 
thority." 

Mr.  Frothingham  says  of  this  confederation: 
"The  powers  reserved  to  each  jurisdiction  proved 
impracticable,  and  the  provisions  to  promote  the 
common  welfare  were  crude.  Notwithstanding 
these  vital  defects,  the  service  which  the  confed 
eracy  rendered  was  never  forgotten:  It  was  re 
ferred  to  in  every  period  of  the  colonial  age;  and 
in  seasons  of  peril  there  was  a  call  for  its  revival. 
The  embodiment  of  the  idea  of  union  was  imper 
fect;  but  the  principle  of  the  equality  of  distinct 
jurisdictions,  the  inviolability  of  their  local  govern 
ments,  and  the  aim  of  providing  one  system  of  law, 


EARLY    ATTEMPTS    AT    UNION  99 

securing  to  the  people  of  all  the  colonies  their 
rights,  became  fundamentals  of  a  republican  polity." 

It  is  probable — at  least  that  is  the  view  most  gen 
erally  taken  by  the  historians — that  in  forming  this 
union  no  thought  of  independency  or  of  a  separa 
tion  from  the  English  crown  was  in  the  minds  of 
its  promoters.  The  suggestions  they  followed  were, 
as  I  have  said,  the  natural  outgrowth  of  conditions; 
and  that  these  conditions  were  pregnant  of  further 
suggestions  of  a  larger  union  and  of  separation  from 
the  crown  was  yet  to  be  unfolded.  Yet  it  is  true, 
as  was  said  by  John  Quincy  Adams,  in  his  dis 
course  on  the  New  England  confederacy,  delivered 
in  1843,  that  the  confederation  was  "the  exercise  of 
sovereign  power  in  its  highest  attributes."  There 
was  no  declaration  against  the  king  in  the  articles, 
but  he  was  wholly  left  out  of  them. 

Upon  the  accession  of  Charles  II  to  the  throne, 
the  advantage  of  a  union  of  the  English  colonies 
in  America  from  a  royal  standpoint  was  recog 
nized.  The  hostile  environment  of  the  colonies 
menaced  England  through  them.  A  union  of  forces 
and  of  resources  was  needed  by  the  colonists  for 
the  protection  of  their  lives  and  property ;  by  the 
king  for  the  defense  of  his  dominions.  The  advan 
tage  of  taking  the  direction  of  the  movement  was 
apparent;  and,  in  1660,  Charles  organized  a  com 
mission  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  the  scattered 
colonies  into  a  "more  certain  civil  and  uniform  gov- 


IOO  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

ernment."  James  II,  pursuing  the  same  line,  planned 
to  unite  the  colonists  between  the  Delaware  *and  the 
St.  Lawrence  under  one  royal  governor  and  a  sin 
gle  legislative  council  to  be  appointed  by  the  king, 
but  was  deposed  before  the  plan  was  executed:  These 
incidents  and  others  of  a  later  date  of  the  same  char 
acter  are  worthy  of  note  as  admissions  by  the  crown 
of  the  advantage  of  a  union  of  the  colonies  under 
one  resident  executive  and  one  council  or  congress. 
This  sentiment  was  expressed  in  1696  by  the  lords 
of  trade  and  plantations  thus:  "We  humbly  con 
ceive  that  the  strength  of  the  English  there  [in 
America]  can  not  be  made  use  of  with  that  advan 
tage  it  ought  for  the  preservation  of  those  colonies, 
unless  they  be  united." 

In  1677  a  joint  conference  was  held  at  Albany 
by  Virginia,  Maryland  and  New  York  with  the 
Seneca  Indians;  and  in  1684  another  congress,  in 
which  Massachusetts  participated  with  the  colonies 
named,  was  held  at  the  same  place  with  the  Five 
Nations  of  Indians.  In  1690  the  general  court  of 
Massachusetts,  moved  by  the  massacre  at  Schenec- 
tady,  invited  "New  York,  Virginia  and  Maryland, 
and  parts  adjacent"  to  meet  the  New  England 
colonies  in  a  conference  to  organize  the  common  de 
fense.  Only  Massachusetts,  Plymouth,  Connecticut 
and  New  York  were  represented  in  the  conference 
which  was  held  in  New  York.  Plans  of  defense 
were  discussed  covering  the  northern  frontier,  and 


EARLY   ATTEMPTS   AT    UNION  IOI 

an  organization  of  the  military  forces,  to  be  contrib 
uted  by  each,  was  agreed  upon.  Mr.  Bancroft  and 
other  historians  characterize  this  assemblage  as  the 
first  American  congress. 

About  the  same  time  William  Penn  appeared  be 
fore  the  lords  of  trade  and  plantations  with  a  sug 
gestion  of  a  plan  of  union  of  the  colonies  which 
was  afterward  presented  by  him  in  writing,  and 
embraced  the  following  provisions:  First,  that  the 
several  colonies,  by  appointed  deputies,  should 
meet  once  a  year  in  time  of  war  and  once  in  two 
years  in  time  of  peace,  to  debate  and  resolve  meas 
ures  for  their  "better  understanding  and  the  public 
tranquillity  and  safety,"  and  particularly  to  adjust 
matters  of  difference  between  province  and  province 
relating  to  debtors  or  fugitives  from  justice  fleeing 
one  province  to  the  other,  disputes  as  to  commerce 
and  matters  relating  to  the  defense  of  the  provinces 
against  public  enemies;  that  this  conference  or  con 
gress  should  be  presided  over  by  the  king's  com 
missioner,  and  that  in  time  of  war,  the  king's  high 
commissioner  should  be  commander-in-chief  of  the 
forces  organized  for  defense. 

A  memorial  by  the  general  court  of  Massachu 
setts  to  the  king,  in  1696,  proposed  that  the  royal 
governor  of  Massachusetts  should  also  be  the  civil 
governor  of  New  York  and  New  Hampshire,  and 
general  of  all  the  forces  of  Massachusetts,  New 
York,  New  Hampshire,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island 


IO2  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

and  the  Jerseys.  This  project  was  naturally  resist 
ed  by  the  agents  of  Connecticut,  New  Hampshire 
and  New  York.  But  a  distinguished  writer  says: 
"This  line  of  recommendation  had  so  much  weight 
with  the  lords  of  trade,  and  harmonized  so  com 
pletely  with  their  views  and  designs  that  a  remod 
eling  of  the  internal  affairs  of  the  colonies  and 
unity  became  at  length  the  corner-stone  of  their 
policy." 

In  reporting  upon  the  matters  submitted  the  lords 
of  trade  said:  "We  now  humbly  crave  leave  to  add 
that  the  distinct  proprieties,  charters  and  different 
forms  of  government  in  several  of  those  neighboring 
colonies,  make  all  other  union  except  under  such  a 
military  head  (in  our  opinion)  at  present  impracti 
cable." 

The  recommendation  submitted  was  that  the  king 
should  appoint  a  suitable  person  to  be  governor  of 
the  provinces  of  New  York,  Massachusetts  Bay  and 
New  Hampshire  and  that  he  should  be  also  captain 
general  of  all  the  king's  forces  in  the  colonies 
named,  as  also  in  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island  and 
the  Jerseys,  the  chief  residence  of  the  governor  to 
be  at  New  York.  The  report  concluded  as  fol 
lows:  "And,  in  the  last  place,  we  are  also  humbly 
of  the  opinion  that  the  general  assemblies  of  all 
those  neighboring  colonies,  by  the  prudent  conduct 
of  such  a  captain  general,  may  be  made  to  under 
stand  their  own  true  interests  and  thereby  induced 


EARLY   ATTEMPTS   AT    UNION  103 

to  enact  such  laws  in  their  respective  governments 
as  shall  be  necessary  to  enable  the  said  captain  gen 
eral  to  execute  your  majesty's  commissions  so  as 
shall  be  most  for  your  majesty's  service,  their  own 
defense  and  general  advantage." 

Lord  Bellomont  was  accordingly  commissioned 
captain  general  over  the  provinces  of  Massachu 
setts,  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey  and  New  York. 

Many  plans  of  union  were,  during  these  protract 
ed  discussions,  propounded  in  pamphlet  and  me 
morial;  and  in  the  course  of  the  discussion,  some 
of  those  elements  of  division  which  afterward  ap 
peared  so  threateningly  in  the  continental  congress 
and  in  the  constitutional  convention  are  disclosed — 
especially  that  of  the  basis  of  representation  in  any 
general  congress  or  council,  and  a  jealousy  as  to 
the  place  of  its  assemblage. 

The  lords  of  trade  in  1721,  in  a  report  to  the 
king  on  colonial  affairs,  adopted  the  suggestion 
that  all  of  the  provinces  from  Nova  Scotia  to  South 
Carolina  should  be  put  under  the  government  of 
"one  lord  lieutenant  or  captain  general  from  whom 
all  other  governors  of  particular  provinces  should 
receive  their  orders  in  all  cases  for  your  majesty's 
service,  and  cease  to  have  any  command  respectively 
in  such  province  where  the  said  captain  general 
shall  at  any  time  reside."  The  captain  general  was 
to  be  attended  by  two  or  more  councilors  deputed 
by  each  plantation. 


IO4  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

All  of  these  efforts  by  the  crown  to  effect  a  con 
solidation  of  the  colonies  were  intended,  first,  to 
make  a  more  effective  use  of  the  military  resources 
of  the  colonies  against  the  king's  enemies,  and  sec 
ond,  to  curb,  by  the  institution  of  a  stronger  royal 
government,  the  increasing  demands  of  the  colo 
nists  for  a  fuller  control  of  their  own  affairs — or, 
as  a  writer  of  the  time  expressed  it,  to  "prevent 
them  from  setting  up  for  an  independency  of  gov 
ernment,  to  the  unspeakable  loss  and  detriment  of 
the  kingdom."  But  the  colonists  were  all  the  while, 
and  very  naturally,  looking  at  this  question  from  an 
American  standpoint.  And,  running  through  this 
whole  period,  conferences  between  the  governors  or 
delegates  appointed  by  the  different  colonies,  to 
take  into  consideration  the  threatening  attitude  of  the 
French  and  Indians,  to  confer  with  friendly  tribes, 
to  arrange  the  quota  of  men  and  supplies  of  the  sev 
eral  colonies,  and  other  such  matters  of  common  in 
terest,  were  frequent.  A  correspondence,  too, 
sprang  up  between  the  governors — and  even  be 
tween  the  general  assemblies,  without  the  concur 
rence  of  the  governors — in  which  all  these  and 
other  matters  of  common  interest  were  the  subject 
of  conference. 

In  September,  1753,  the  lords  of  trade  directed 
the  governors  of  the  provinces  to  appoint  commis 
sioners  with  a  view  of  holding  a  conference  and 
negotiating  a  treaty  with  the  Six  Nations  in  order 


EARLY    ATTEMPTS    AT    UNION  IO5 

to  prevent  them  from  aiding  the  French.  This  has 
been  described  as  the  "second  call  for  an  Ameri 
can  congress,  based  upon  the  principle  of  represen 
tation."  The  congress  convened  at  Albany  in  June, 
1754,  and  was  composed  of  commissioners  from 
Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  Connecticut,  Rhode 
Island,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland  and  New  York. 
Benjamin  Franklin  was  a  member.  One  of  the  ob 
jects  of  the  congress,  as  stated  in  the  call,  was  to 
determine  whether  the  colonists  would  "enter  into 
articles  of  union  and  federation  with  each  other  for 
the  mutual  defense  of  his  majesty's  subjects  and  in 
terests  in  North  America  as  well  in  times  of  peace 
and  war."  It  was  resolved  unanimously  that  a 
union  of  the  colonies  was  necessary,  and  a  commit 
tee  was  appointed  to  examine  the  plans  of  union  of 
fered  and  to  report  a  plan.  Of  this  committee 
Franklin  was  a  member.  A  plan  prepared  by  him 
was  submitted,  and  the  congress  directed  that  copies 
of  it  should  be  sent  to  the  respective  colonies,  to 
those  not  represented  as  well  as  to  those  present  by 
delegates,  for  such  suggestions  as  might  be  made; 
the  purpose  being  afterward  to  submit  the  plan  to 
parliament  for  enactment  into  law.  Franklin  had, 
previous  to  the  meeting  of  the  congress,  prepared 
what  he  called  short  hints  toward  a  scheme  for 
uniting  the  northern  colonies.  The  device  append 
ed  was  a  serpent  separated  into  parts,  each  part  rep 
resenting  a  colony  and  over  it  the  motto,  "Join  or 


IO6  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

Die."  These  hints  were  the  basis  of  the  plan  sub 
mitted  by  him  to  the  congress.  This  scheme  of 
government  is  especially  worthy  of  attention;  first, 
by  reason  of  its  distinguished  authorship;  and  sec 
ond,  by  reason  of  some  special  provisions  of  it 
which,  after  long  resistance,  found  effective  expres 
sion  in  the  constitution  of  1787.  It  will  be  remem 
bered  that  Franklin,  in  his  old  age,  was  a  member 
of  the  convention  of  1787  also. 

The  plan  contemplated,  as  I  have  said,  an  act  of 
parliament  to  give  it  effect  and  was  intended  to  or 
ganize  one  general  government  which  should  in 
clude  all  the  colonies;  "within  and  under  which 
government  each  colony  (as  it  was  expressed)  may 
retain  its  present  constitution,  except  in  the  partic 
ulars  wherein  a  change  may  be  directed  by  the  said 
act."  The  scheme  was  briefly  this:  A  president 
general  was  to  be  appointed  and  paid  by  the  crown; 
and  a  grand  .council  was  to  be  chosen  by  the  rep 
resentatives  of  the  people  of  the  colonies  in  their 
respective  assemblies.  This  council  was  to  consist 
of  forty-eight  members.  The  representation  of  the 
several  colonies  was  not,  as  in  the  New  England  con 
federation,  and  afterward  in  the  revolutionary  con 
gresses  and  in  the  articles  of  confederation,  equal; 
but  a  specific  apportionment  was  made  which  gave 
to  Massachusetts  Bay  and  Virginia  seven  mem 
bers,  to  Connecticut  and  New  Hampshire  two  each, 
and  to  the  other  colonies  numbers  in  proportion  to 


EARLY   ATTEMPTS   AT    UNION  1 07 

their  importance.  Twenty-five  members  were  to 
constitute  a  quorum,  provided  there  were  among 
them  one  or  more  representatives  from  a  majority 
of  the  colonies.  A  new  election  was  provided  for 
at  the  end  of  three  years,  when  the  apportionment 
of  the  members  was  to  be  upon  the  basis  of  the 
money  contributions  of  the  respective  colonies  to  the 
general  treasury;  no  colony,  however,  to  have  more 
than  seven  or  less  than  two  representatives.  All 
acts  of  the  general  council  were  made  subject  to  the 
assent  of  the  president  general;  and,  in  the  discus 
sions  upon  the  plan,  this  provision  was  construed 
to  require  the  assent  of  the  president  to  the  selec 
tion  of  a  speaker  of  the  council.  The  council  was 
to  meet  once  every  year,  and  could  not  be  dissolved, 
nor  prorogued;  nor  continued  in  session  longer  than 
six  weeks  at  one  time,  without  their  own  consent 
or  the  special  direction  of  the  crown.  The  powers 
of  this  general  government  were:  To  make  all  In 
dian  treaties  affecting  the  general  interest;  to  make 
peace  or  declare  war  with  the  Indian  tribes;  to  make 
such  laws  as  were  necessary  for  regulating  Indian 
trade;  to  make  all  purchases  from  the  Indians  of 
lands  not  within  the  bounds  of  particular  colonies; 
to  make  new  settlements  upon  such  purchases,  by 
granting  lands  in  the  king's  name;  and  to  make 
laws  for  governing  such  new  settlements  till  they 
should  be  formed  into  particular  governments;  to 
raise  and  pay  soldiers,  build  forts  and  equip  vessels; 


IO8  VIEWS    OF    AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

to  guard  the  coast  and  protect  trade.  It  was  de 
clared  that  for  these  purposes  "they  have  power  to 
make  laws  and  lay  and  levy  such  general  duties,  im 
post  or  taxes  as  to  them  shall  appear  most  equal 
and  just,  considering  the  ability  and  other  circum 
stances  of  the  inhabitants  in  the  several  colonies." 
A  general  treasurer  and  a  particular  treasurer  for 
each  colony  were  to  be  selected  by  the  president  and 
general  council  to  receive  the  taxes  levied.  The 
joint  order  of  the  president  and  council  was  made 
necessary  to  the  expenditure  of  money.  All  military 
officers  were  to  be  nominated  by  the  president  gen 
eral  and  confirmed  by  the  grand  council  before  they 
were  commissioned;  and  all  civil  officers  were  to  be 
nominated  by  the  grand  council  and  to  be  approved 
by  the  president  general  before  they  entered  upon 
their  offices. 

Unlike  the  New  England  confederation  and  the 
confederation  of  the  revolution  this  plan  did  not 
propose  a  league  or  confederation;  but  instituted  a 
general  government  that  acted,  not  upon  constituent 
states,  but  directly  upon  the  people  of  all  the  colonies. 
The  laws  made  by  the  president  and  council,  with 
in  the  powers  committed  to  them,  were  the  su 
preme  laws  of  the  land.  The  revenues  for  support 
ing  the  general  government  proposed  were  to  be 
levied  and  collected  by  it  and  taken  into  its  own 
treasury.  In  all  matters  not  expressly  confided  to 
the  general  government  the  separate  autonomy  and 


EARLY   ATTEMPTS   AT   UNION  IOQ 

administration  of  each  colony  were  preserved.  In  a 
word  we  have  here  the  principle  which,  after  years 
of  heated  discussions  and  threatening  divisions,  was 
finally  adopted  in  our  national  constitution.  The 
proposition  was  premature;  but  it  was  a  seed  that 
was  to  have  glorious  fruitage.  It  was  a  rejected 
stone  that  was  yet  to  become  the  chief  corner 
stone. 

Power  is  never  graciously  surrendered  and  the 
colonies  did  not  surrender  to  the  general  govern 
ment  powers  which  they  had  long  exercised  until 
they  had  been  brought,  under  the  Providence  of 
God,  to  the  inexorable  contingency  of  the  loss  of 
all  the  powers  of  free  government  or  the  surrender 
of  such  part  thereof  to  the  general  government  as 
was  necessary  to  the  establishment  and  equipment 
of  a  nation.  Writing  after  the  adoption  of  the 
constitution,  of  this  Albany  plan,  Franklin  says: 
"On  reflection  it  now  seems  probable,  that,  if  the 
foregoing  plan,  or  something  like  it,  had  been 
adopted  and  carried  into  execution,  the  subsequent 
separation  of  the  colonies  from  the  mother  coun 
try  might  not  so  soon  have  happened,  nor  the 
mischief  suffered  on  both  sides  have  occurred,  per 
haps,  during  another  century."  How  far  the 
thought  of  Franklin  was,  in  some  respects,  in  ad 
vance  of  that  of  his  contemporaries  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  the  Albany  plan,  when  submitted  to 
the  several  colonies,  did  not  secure  the  approval 


IIO  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

of  a  single  one.  The  objections  to  it  were  vari 
ous,  and  some  of  them  were  good.  The  power  of 
parliament,  impliedly  recognized  in  the  very  open 
ing  paragraph,  to  make  changes  in  the  present 
constitutions  of  the  colonies  would  lay  them  open 
to  an  unrestricted  invasion  of  their  liberties.  The 
absolute  negative  of  the  president  general  upon  all 
acts  of  the  council  gave  too  much  power  to  the 
king's  agent;  but,  after  all,  the  most  potent  in 
fluence  in  the  firm  and  unanimous  rejection  of  this 
scheme  is  to  be  found  in  the  unwillingness  of  the 
colonies  to  admit  of  any  general  government  that 
should  act  directly  upon  the  citizen.  The  fact 
that,  when  threatened  by  armies  and  fleets,  they 
would  only  give  to  the  confederation  advisory 
powers  shows  how  tenaciously  the  colonies  held 
on  to  all  taxing  power.  At  the  root  of  this  ob 
jection  lay  that  dominant  principle  of  English  and 
American  civil  life — the  love  of  local  control.  The 
idea  of  subjecting  the  citizen  or  his  property  to 
the  direct  control  of  any  power  outside  of  the 
colony  was  repugnant  to  the  people. 

Franklin,  speaking  further  of  the  plan,  in  the 
same  note  from  which  I  have  just  quoted,  says: 
"The  crown  disapproved  it  as  having  too  much 
weight  in  the  democratic  part  of  the  constitu 
tion;  and  every  assembly  as  having  allowed  too 
much  to  prerogative;  so  it  was  totally  rejected." 

Of  this    plan,    Mr.    Bancroft    says:    "This    plan,. 


EARLY   ATTEMPTS   AT    UNION  III 

which  foreshadowed  the  present  constitution  of  the 
Dominion  of  Canada  and  the  federation  which 
with  hope  and  applause  was  lately  offered  by  rival 
ministries  to  South  Africa,  was  at  that  day  re 
jected  by  the  British  government  with  abhorrence 
and  disdain." 

The  failure  of  all  these  efforts  to  organize  a 
union  of  the  colonies  under  the  crown  might  have 
been  easily  predicted.  The  plans  were  bottomed 
upon  an  act  of  parliament,  which  involved  a  broad 
admission  of  the  power  of  parliament  to  legislate 
for  the  colonies,  and  left  the  organic  act  open  to 
amendment  by  the  same  authority.  From  this  time 
forward  the  efforts  for  a  union  of  the  colonies 
were  to  find  their  suggestion,  not  in  the  fear  of  the 
French  or  of  the  Indian,  but  of  England — the  moth 
er  country — and  to  have  for  their  object  a  re 
dress  of  civil  injuries  involving  the  liberties  of  all 
the  colonies. 

The  efforts  of  the  crown  were  now  naturally  to 
divide,  not  to  unite,  the  colonies.  The  conquest  of 
Canada  had  destroyed  the  English  interest  in  the 
increase  of  the  military  strength  of  the  American 
colonies — to  repress  and  diminish  it  was  henceforth 
the  English  policyr  But  as  the  interest  in  a  union 
of  the  colonies  waned  in  England  it  increased  in 
America. 

The  stamp  act,  and  the  accompanying  declara 
tory  resolves  affirming  the  power  of  parliament  to  tax 


112  VIEWS    OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

the  colonies  resulted  in  a  congress  which  assembled 
in  the  city  hall  in  New  York  on  October  7,  1765.  The 
movement  for  this  congress  had  its  origin  in  Massa 
chusetts.  In  May,  1764,  a  meeting  was  assembled 
in  Boston  to  instruct  the  delegates  of  that,  town  to 
the  general  court,  to  remonstrate  against  the  powers 
assumed  and  declared  by  parliament.  The  resolu 
tions  concluded  with  these  words:  "As  his  majesty's 
other  northern  American  colonies  are  embarked  with 
us  in  this  most  important  bottom,  we  further  desire 
you  to  use  your  endeavors,  that  their  weight  may  be 
added  to  that  of  this  province;  that,  as  by  the  united 
application  of  all  who  are  aggrieved,  all  may  hap 
pily  obtain  redress." 

A  committee  of  the  general  court  was  appointed 
to  correspond  with  the  other  colonies  and  to  request 
their  co-operation  in  such  measures  as  might  be 
necessary  to  present  effectively  the  opposition  to  the 
stamp  act.  The  other  colonies  generally  acted,  but 
separately,  in  presenting  their  remonstrances  to  the 
crown;  but,  in  spite  of  these,  the  stamp  act  received 
the  royal  assent  March  22,  1765. 

On  the  eighth  of  June  following,  the  legislature  of 
Massachusetts  issued  a  circular  proposing  a  meeting 
of  committees  from  the  houses  of  representatives 
"or  burgesses  of  the  several  British  colonies  on  this 
continent,  to  consult  together  on  the  present  circum 
stances  of  the  colonies,  and  the  difficulties  to  which 
they  are  and  must  be  reduced  by  the  operation  of 


EARLY  ATTEMPTS  AT  UNION         113 

the  acts  of  parliament  for  levying  duties  and  taxes 
on  the  colonies."  It  proposed  that  the  meeting 
should  be  held  in  New  York  on  the  first  Tuesday 
in  October,  and  invited  the  appointment  of  delegates 
by  the  other  colonies. 

The  congress  assembled  in  October  and  was  com 
posed  of  twenty-eight  delegates,  nine  colonies  being 
represented.  The  other  four,  however,  sympathized 
with  the  movement,  though  they  did  not  choose  rep 
resentatives.  The  colonies  represented  were  Massa 
chusetts,  South  Carolina,  Pennsylvania,  Rhode 
Island,  Connecticut,  Delaware,  Maryland,  New 
Jersey  and  New  York.  The  congress  agreed,  after 
being  in  session  eleven  days,  upon  a  declaration  con 
sisting  of  a  preamble  and  fourteen  resolutions,  and 
prepared  an  address  to  the  king,  a  memorial  to  the 
house  of  lords,  and  a  petition  to  the  house  of  com 
mons.  They  denied  the  power  of  parliament  to  tax 
the  colonies  without  their  consent,  affirmed  that  rep 
resentation  in  the  house  of  commons  was  not  practi 
cable,  and  therefore  that  taxes  could  only  be  imposed 
by  their  own  legislatures.  These  resolutions  and 
memorials  were  signed  by  the  representatives  of  six 
of  the  colonies  present;  and  Connecticut  and  South 
Carolina,  which  had  not  authorized  their  representa 
tives  to  sign,  afterward  gave  their  concurrence.  The 
New  York  assembly,  while  approving  the  repre 
sentation  of  the  colony  in  the  congress,  sent  a  sepa 
rate  petition  to  the  king.  This  congress  did  not  pro- 


114  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

pose  or  set  up  any  union  of  the  colonies.  It  was 
called  for  the  sole  purpose  of  giving  a  joint  expres 
sion  of  the  grievances  complained  of  and  a  united 
remonstrance  against  them. 

The  union  began  with  the  next  continental  con 
gress — that  of  1/74, — and  has  had,  under  the  revo 
lutionary — which  was  its  first  form — the  confeder 
acy,  and  the  constitution,  continuance  and  succes 
sion  to  this  hour. 

The  revolutionary  government  practically  began 
with  the  assembling  of  congress  on  the  fifth  day  of 
September,  1774,  at  Carpenter's  hall,  Philadelphia, 
and  continued  until  the  articles  of  confederation  went 
into  effect. 

Delegates  were  present  from  New  Hampshire, 
Massachusetts  Bay,  Rhode  Island  and  Providence 
Plantations,  Connecticut,  from  the  city  and  county 
of  New  York,  and  other  counties  in  the  province 
of  New  York,  from  New  Jersey,  from  Pennsylvania, 
from  New  Castle,  Kent  and  Sussex,  in  Delaware; 
from  Maryland,  from  Virginia,  and  from  South 
Carolina. 

The  powers  of  this  congress  are  to  be  gathered 
from  the  credentials  or  commissions  the  delegates 
brought  with  them. 

The  credentials  of  the  New  Hampshire  delegates 
empowered  them  "to  devise,  consult,  and  adopt  such 
measures  as  may  have  the  most  likely  tendency  to 
extricate  the  colonies  from  their  present  difficulties; 


EARLY   ATTEMPTS   AT   UNION 

to  secure  and  perpetuate  their  rights,  liberties  and 
privileges,  and  to  restore  that  peace,  harmony  and 
mutual  confidence  which  once  happily  subsisted  be 
tween  the  parent  country,  and  her  colonies." 

The  objects  were  stated  in  the  Massachusetts 
credentials  as  follows :  "To  consult  upon  the  present 
state  of  the  colonies,  and  the  miseries  to  which  they 
are  and  must  be  reduced,  by  the  operation  of  certain 
acts  of  parliament  respecting  America,  and  to  de 
liberate  and  determine  upon  wise  and  proper  meas 
ures,  to  be  by  them  recommended  to  all  the  colonies, 
for  the  recovery  and  establishment  of  their  just 
rights  and  liberties,  civil  and  religious,  and  the 
restoration  of  union  and  harmony  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  colonies,  most  ardently  desired  by 
all  good  men." 

From  Rhode  Island  the  credentials  ran  as  follows : 
To  join  the  other  colonies  "in  consulting  upon  prop 
er  measures  to  obtain  a  repeal  of  the  several  acts  of 
the  British  parliament,  for  levying  taxes  upon  his 
Majesty's  subjects  in  America,  without  their  con 
sent,  and  particularly  an  act  lately  passed  for  block 
ing  up  the  port  of  Boston,  and  upon  proper  meas 
ures  to  establish  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  col 
onies,  upon  a  just  and  solid  foundation." 

The  credentials  from  Connecticut  were  broader, 
viz. :  "to  consult  and  advise  with  the  commissioners 
or  committees  of  the  several  English  colonies  in 


Il6  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

America  on  proper  measures  for  advancing  the  best 
good  of  the  colonies." 

The  resolve  of  Pennsylvania  was  that  "there  is  an 
absolute  necessity  that  a  congress  of  deputies  from 
the  several  colonies,  be  held  as  soon  as  conveniently 
may  be,  to  consult  together  upon  the  present  un 
happy  state  of  the  colonies,  and  to  form  and  adopt 
a  plan  for  the  purposes  of  obtaining  redress  of 
American  grievances,  ascertaining  American  rights 
upon  the  most  solid  and  constitutional  principles, 
and  for  establishing  that  union  and  harmony  be 
tween  Great  Britain  and  the  colonies,  which  is 
indispensably  necessary  to  the  welfare  and  happines« 
of  both." 

Delaware  stated  the  evils  to  be  remedied  with 
more  particularity;  the  object  stated  in  the  pre 
amble  of  the  resolution  of  appointment  being  to 
take  into  consideration  "the  several  acts  of  the 
British  parliament,  for  restraining  manufactures  in 
his  Majesty's  colonies  and  plantations  in  North 
America, — for  taking  away  the  property  of  the 
colonists  without  their  participation  or  consent, — 
for  the  introduction  of  the  arbitrary  powers  of 
excise  into  the  customs  here, — for  the  making  of 
all  revenue  causes  triable  without  jury,  and  under 
the  decision  of  a  single  dependent  judge, — for  the 
trial,  in  England,  of  persons  accused  of  capital 
crimes,  committed  in  the  colonies, — for  the  sliut- 
ting  up  the  port  of  Boston, — for  the  new-model- 


EARLY   ATTEMPTS   AT   UNION 

ing  the  government  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay; 
and  the  operation  of  the  same  on  the  property,  liber 
ty  and  lives  of  the  colonists. 

The  commission  of  the  delegates  from  Maryland 
ran:  "To  effect  one  general  plan  of  conduct,  oper 
ating  on  the  commercial  connection  of  the  colonies 
with  the  mother  country,  for  the  relief  of  Boston 
and  preservation  of  American  liberty." 

The  object  was  stated  in  the  Virginia  resolutions 
to  be  "to  consider  of  the  most  proper  and  effectual 
manner  of  so  operating  on  the  commercial  connec 
tion  of  the  colonies  with  the  mother  country,  as  to 
procure  redress  for  the  much  injured  province  of 
Massachusetts  Bay,  to  secure  British  America  from 
the  ravage  and  ruin  of  arbitrary  taxes,  and  speedily 
to  procure  the  return  of  that  harmony  and  union, 
so  beneficial  to  the  whole  empire,  and  so  ardently 
desired  by  all  British  America." 

The  South  Carolina  resolution  ran  as  follows: 
"To  consider  the  acts  lately  passed,  and  bills  depend 
ing  in  parliament  with  regard  to  the  port  of  Bos 
ton  and  colony  of  Massachusetts  Bay,  which  acts 
and  bills  in  the  precedent  and  consequences  affect 
the  whole  continent  of  America — also  the  grievances 
under  which  America  labors,  by  reason  of  the  sev 
eral  acts  of  parliament  that  impose  taxes  or  duties 
for  raising  a  revenue,  and  lay  unnecessary  restraints 
and  burdens  on  trade;  and  of  the  statutes,  parlia 
mentary  acts,  and  royal  instructions,  which  make  an 


Il8  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

invidious  distinction  between  his  Majesty's  subjects 
in  Great  Britain  and  America,  with  full  power  and 
authority  to  concert,  agree  to,  and  effectually  prose 
cute  such  legal  measures,  as  in  the  opinion  of  the 
said  deputies,  shall  be  most  likely  to  obtain  a  repeal 
of  the  said  acts,  and  a  redress  of  those  grievances." 

The  delegates  from  North  Carolina  appeared  in 
the  convention  on  the  fourth  day  of  September  and 
their  credentials  authorized  them  "to  deliberate  upon 
the  present  state  of  British  America,  and  to  take 
such  measures,  as  they  may  deem  prudent,  to  effect 
the  purpose  of  describing  with  certainty  the  rights  of 
Americans,  repairing  the  breach  made  in  those 
rights,  and  for  guarding  them  for  the  future  from 
any  violations  done  under  the  sanction  of  public 
authority." 

The  plan  of  giving  to  each  colony  one  vote  in  the 
congress  was  agreed  upon  on  the  second  day  of  the 
meeting,  September  sixth;  but  it  appears,  from  the 
resolution  adopted,  that  the  plan  was  not  assumed 
to  be  just  or  permanent;  but  was  adopted  for  the 
time  being  and  until  the  data  necessary  to  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  proper  basis  of  representation  could  be 
gathered.  The  resolution  was  as  follows:  "That  in 
determining  questions  in  this  congress,  each  colony 
or  province  shall  have  one  vote,  the  congress  not 
being  possessed  of  or  at  present  able  to  procure 
proper  materials  for  ascertaining  the  importance 
of  each  colony." 


EARLY   ATTEMPTS   AT   UNION 

The  union  was  expressed  by  the  act  of  sending 
delegates;  and  the  powers  exercised  by  the  congress 
rested  wholly  upon  the  acquiescence  of  the  people. 
Mr.  Story  says  that  it  "exercised,  de  facto  and  de 
jure,  a  sovereign  authority;  not  as  the  delegated 
agents  of  the  governments  of  the  colonies  de  facto, 
but  in  virtue  of  original  powers  derived  from  the 
people." 

The  principal  work  of  this  congress  was  the  re 
statement  of  the  rights  and  grievances  of  the 
colonies,  the  preparation  of  further  petitions  and 
addresses  looking  to  the  correction  of  these  evils, 
and  a  resolve  against  the  importation  of  British 
goods  and  the  exportation  of  merchandise  to  Great 
Britain.  Articles  of  agreement  to  carry  this  resolu 
tion  into  effect  were  signed,  and  commercial  retalia 
tion  inaugurated.  A  general  congress  to  assemble 
in  May,  1775,  was  recommended. 

The  delegates  to  the  congress  of  1775  were  prin 
cipally  chosen  by  conventions  of  the  people;  and 
upon  assembling — the  petitions  of  the  prior  con 
gress  to  the  king  having  been  rejected,  and  war 
inaugurated — a  state  of  war  was  accepted  on  be 
half  of  the  colonies;  a  continental  army  was  or 
ganized,  and  Washington  commissioned  as  com- 
mander-in-chief.  The  congress  authorized  the  is 
suing  of  bills  of  credit,  to  the  redemption  of  which 
the  faith  of  the  colonies  was  pledged ;  framed  articles 
of  war  for  the  government  of  the  army;  created  a 


I2O  VIEWS  OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

general  postoffice;  apportioned  the  cost  of  the  war 
among  the  colonies;  authorized  and  prepared  regula 
tions  for  a  continental  navy;  and  recommended,  to 
the  colonies  asking  advice,  the  organization  of  state 
governments. 

The  next  important  act  affecting  the  relation  of 
the  colonies  to  each  other  and  to  the  world  was  the 
declaration  of  independence. 

It  is  well,  I  think,  to  state  and  emphasize  here  two 
or  three  historical  facts  of  the  highest  significance,  in 
the  study  of  constitutional  law: 

First.  Union  preceded  independence,  and  was 
by  every  American  recognized  to  be  a  necessary  ante 
cedent. 

Second.  Independence  was  declared  by  the  peo 
ple  of  "the  united  colonies/'  achieved  by  the  arms 
of  the  people  of  the  "United  States,"  and  confirmed 
by  treaties  signed  by  the  ambassadors  of  the  United 
States. 

Third.  The  state  governments  were  organized  in 
the  union  and  as  a  part  of  it.  The  states  never  were 
independent  states,  except  as  constituent  parts  of  a 
free  nation.  No  one  of  them  was  ever  recognized 
as  an  independent  state  by  any  other  state  or  king 
dom  in  the  world;  no  one  of  them  ever  sent  or  re 
ceived  an  ambassador;  no  one  of  them  ever  unfurled 
a  flag  that  was  saluted  on  the  sea.  As  colonies  they 
had  numerous  agents  in  London;  but,  only  as  the 
United  States  of  America,  an  ambassador.  Inde- 


EARLY   ATTEMPTS   AT   UNION  121 

pendence  was  as  impossible  to  the  individual  colony 
after  Yorktown  as  before  Bunker  Hill.  Union  was 
as  essential  to  the  permanence  as  to  the  procurement 
of  independence.  Paine  said  truly  that  nothing  but 
a  continental  form  of  government  can  "keep  the 
peace  of  the  continent." 

It  was  implied,  from  the  first  association  of 
the  colonies  in  a  continental  congress,  that  gen 
eral  powers  must  be  exercised  by  and  through 
a  general  government.  It  was  years  before  this 
necessary  implication  was  fully  declared  in  the 
constitution;  but  each  of  those  years  made  the 
conclusion  more  certain. 

In  his  Commentaries  on  the  Constitution,  Judge 
Story  says:  "In  the  first  place,  antecedent  to  the 
declaration  of  independence,  none  of  the  colonies 
were  or  pretended  to  be  sovereign  states,  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  term  'sovereign'  is  sometimes  applied 
to  states.  *  *  *  So  far  as  respects  foreign 
states  the  colonies  were  not,  in  the  sense  of  the 
laws  of  nations,  sovereign  states,  but  mere  depen 
dencies  of  Great  Britain.  They  could  make  no 
treaty,  declare  no  war,  send  no  embassadors,  regu 
late  no  intercourse  or  commerce,  nor  in  any  other 
shape  act,  as  sovereigns,  in  the  negotiations  usual 
between  independent  states.  In  respect  to  each 
other  they  stood  in  the  common  relation  of  British 
subjects.  The  legislation  of  neither  could  be  con 
trolled  by  any  other;  but  there  was  a  common  sub- 


122  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

j action  to  the  British  crown.  If  in  any  sense  they 
might  claim  the  attributes  of  sovereignty  it  was 
only  in  that  subordinate  sense  to  which  we  have  al 
luded,  in  exercising,  within  a  limited  extent,  cer 
tain  usual  powers  of  sovereignty.  They  did  not 
even  affect  to  claim  a  local  allegiance." 

And  of  the  declaration  of  independence  he  says: 
"It  was  an  act  of  original,  inherent  sovereignty  by 
the  people  themselves  resulting  from  their  right  to 
change  the  form  of  government  and  to  institute  a 
new  one  whenever  necessary  for  their  safety  and 
happiness.  So  the  declaration  of  independence  treats 
it.  No  state  has  presumed  of  itself  to  form  a  new 
government  or  to  provide  for  the  exigencies  of  the 
times  without  consulting  congress  on  the  subject; 
and,  when  they  acted,  it  was  in  pursuance  of  the 
recommendation  of  congress." 

Charles  Cotesworth  Pinckney,  speaking  of  the 
declaration  of  independence  in  the  legislature  of 
South  Carolina,  in  1788,  says:  "The  several  states 
are  not  even  mentioned  by  name  in  any  part,  as  if 
it  was  intended  to  impress  the  maxim  on  America 
that  our  freedom  and  independence  arose  from  our 
union  and  that  without  it  we  could  never  be  free 
or  independent.  Let  us  then  consider  all  attempts 
to  weaken  this  union,  by  maintaining  that  each 
state  is  separately  and  individually  independent,  as 
a  species  of  political  heresy,  which  can  never  bene- 


EARLY   ATTEMPTS   AT   UNION  123 

fit  us,  but  may  bring  on  us  the  most  serious  dis 
tresses." 

But,  clear  as  these  propositions  are,  historically 
and  legally,  the  mischievous  doctrine  that  the  union 
is  a  mere  confederation  of  independent  states — 
with  its  corollary  that  each  state  may  declare  an 
infraction  of  the  federal  compact  and  withdraw 
from  the  union  at  its  pleasure — found  root  and  sus 
tenance  in  the  sectional  interests  which  human  slav 
ery  engendered;  and  brought  upon  the  nation  the 
"serious  distresses"  which  the  eloquent  South  Caro 
linian  foresaw  and  deprecated. 

Mr.  Story  closes  the  discussion  of  this  question 
in  the  following  words:  "Whatever,  then,  may  be 
the  theories  of  ingenious  men  on  the  subject  it  is 
historically  true  that  before  the  declaration  of  in 
dependence  these  colonies  were  not,  in  any  absolute 
sense,  sovereign  states;  that  that  event  did  not  find 
them  or  make  them  such;  but  that  at  the  moment 
of  their  separation  they  were  under  the  dominion 
of  a  -superior  controlling  national  government  whose 
powers  were  vested  in  and  exercised  by  the  general 
congress  with  the  consent  of  the  people  of  all  the 
states." 

The  grievances  set  forth  in  the  declaration  are 
scheduled  as  common  ills,  though  some  of  them  .had 
only  touched  individual  colonies.  They  were  com 
mon  because  the  people  of  all  the  colonies  were  one 
people. 


THE  CONFEDERATION 

FIFTH    LECTURE 
Delivered  at  Stanford  University,  Ap'ril  9,  1894 

Confederation  was  a  fact  ^  before  independence 
was  declared;  but  it  was  a  confederation  for  the  re 
dress  of  grievances,  not  for  independence.  The  re 
monstrances  still  proceeded  upon  the  theory  that  a 
benevolent  king  was  being  misled  by  wicked  min 
isters.  In  the  general  order  issued  by  Washing 
ton,  upon  the  evacuation  of  Boston,  he  speaks  of 
the  ministerial  army,  not  the  royal  army.  In  fact, 
King  George  was  the  real  enemy.  It  was  his  proud 
and  resentful  spirit  that  sent  British  soldiers  and 
ships  to  our  shores  and  reinforced  them  with  mer 
cenaries  hired  from  continental  rulers.  But,  under 
the  rough  touch  of  war,  the  veneer  of  royalty  dis 
appeared,  and  at  last  the  conservative  and  the  timid 
were  brought  to  see  that  a  confederacy  for  inde 
pendence,  supported  by  a  war  against  the  king,  was 
essential.  A  delegate  declared  "we  must  apply  for 
pardon  if  we  do  not  confederate";  and  to  the  ex- 

124 


THE    CONFEDERATION  12$ 

hortation  of  another,  "we  must  hang  together/' 
Franklin  replied,  "Yes,  or  hang  separately." 

A  declaration  of  independence,  in  the  nature  of 
a  formal  announcement  of  the  severance  of  the  po 
litical  ties  which  had  bound  the  colonies  to  the 
crown,  was  the  necessary  preface  of  the  articles  of 
confederation.  Only  a  free  people  can  act  in  the 
organization  of  a  government.  "Off  with  the  old; 
on  with  the  new"  was  the  natural  order;  but  it  was 
not  an  easy  transition.  The  attachment  of  the  col 
onies  to  the  mother  country  was  stronger  than  they 
had  themselves  realized;  and  the  fear  that  the  as 
sociated  colonies  were  too  weak  to  organize  a  sta 
ble  and  successful  government  was  strong  in  the 
hearts  of  many.  John  Adams,  speaking  of  his  ex 
perience  in  the  congress  of  1775,  said:  "But  now 
these  people  began  to  see  that  independence  was 
approaching,  they  started  back.  In  some  of  my 
public  harangues,  in  which  I  had  freely  and  explic 
itly  laid  open  my  thoughts,  on  looking  around  the 
assembly  I  have  seen  horror,  terror  and  detesta 
tion  strongly  marked  on  the  countenances  of  some 
of  the  members." 

On  the  eleventh  day  of  June,  1776,  a  committee  of 
congress  was  appointed  to  prepare  a  declaration  of 
independence;  and,  on  the  same  day,  a  resolution 
was  passed  for  the  organization  of  a  committee  to 
prepare  articles  of  confederation.  The  work  of  the 
first  committee  had  been  wrell  outlined,  and  an 


126  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

agreement  as  to  grievances  was  not  difficult.  These 
had  been  many  times  scheduled  in  the  petitions  and 
addresses  of  the  colonies  and  of  congress.  The 
hesitation  was  over  the  deduction,  not  over  the 
premises;  not  that  the  deduction  was  not  logical 
and  imperative,  but  that  it  was  so  tremendous.  The 
work  of  the  committee  charged  with  the  prepara 
tion  of  articles  of  confederation  was,  on  the  other 
hand,  one  of  great  delicacy  and  difficulty.  Less 
than  a  month  sufficed  for  the  preparation,  adoption 
and  signing  of  the  declaration  of  independence;  but 
nearly  a  year  and  a  half  intervened  between  the  ap 
pointment  of  the  committee  to  prepare  articles  of 
confederation  and  their  adoption  by  congress.  It 
was  not  until  the  fifteenth  of  November,  1777,  that 
congress  gave  its  approval  to  the  report  of  the 
.committee.  The  subject  was  not,  of  course,  in  this 
interval,  continuously  under  debate.  Time  and 
again  the  debate  led  up  to  difficulties  that  seemed 
so  insurmountable,  and  differences  so  irreconcilable, 
that  the  subject  was  laid  aside.  The  longest  such 
interval  was  from  August,  1776,  to  April,  1777, 
during  which  time  the  question  was  not  debated  in 
congress.  When  the  articles  had  received  the  con 
currence  of  congress  they  were  sent  to  the  states 
for  approval,  accompanied  by  an  eloquent  and  ur 
gent  letter  which  concluded  with  this  appeal:  "Let 
them  be  examined  with  a  liberality  becoming  breth 
ren  and  fellow-citizens,  surrounded  by  the  same 


THE    CONFEDERATION 

imminent  dangers,  contending  for  the  same  illus 
trious  prize,  and  deeply  interested  in  being  forever 
bound  and  connected  together  by  ties  the  most  in 
timate  and  indissoluble.  And  finally  let  them  be 
adjusted  with  the  temper  and  magnanimity  of  wise 
and  patriotic  legislators  who,  while  they  are  con 
cerned  for  the  prosperity  of  their  own  more  imme 
diate  circle,  are  capable  of  rising  superior  to  local 
attachments,  when  they  are  incompatible  with  the 
safety,  happiness  and  glory  of  the  general  confed 
eracy." 

The  debate  was  now  transferred  to  the  states;  and 
many  objections  were  made,  and  many  amendments 
proposed.  It  was  not  until  July  9,  1778,  that  the 
articles  were  engrossed  for  signing  and  the  first 
signatures  attached.  Several  states  signed  on  that 
day,  and  others  at  short  intervals,  as  the  delegates 
were  thereto  authorized;  and,  before  January  i, 
1778,  eleven  states  had  signed.  Delaware  and 
Maryland  still  held  aloof,  insisting  upon  their  objec 
tions — chiefly  upon  a  settlement  as  to  the  western 
boundaries  of  the  colonies,  and  the  recognition  of 
the  principle  that  the  crown  lands  became  the  com 
mon  property  of  all  the  colonies.  Delaware  came  in 
in  February,  1779;  and  Maryland — finally  persuad 
ed,  under  stress  and  urgency  which  now  broke  sin 
gly  upon  her,  to  defer  the  settlement  of  the  land 
question  and  to  confide  in  the  justice  and  generos 
ity  of  the  larger  colonies — signed  March  i,  1781. 


128  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

The  ratification  of  the  articles  of  confederation, 
therefore,  dates  from  March  i,  1781.  Twelve 
states  had  previously  signed;  but  the  articles  con 
tained  no  provision  for  their  taking  effect  without 
the  assent  of  all  the  colonies.  It  was  thus  nearly 
six  years  after  the  battle  of  Lexington,  four  years 
and  eight  months  after  the  declaration  of  inde 
pendence,  and  only  about  eighteen  months  before 
the  preliminary  treaty  of  peace,  that  a  written  con 
stitution  was  adopted  by  all  the  colonies. 

A  union  for  the  purpose  of  defense  against  a 
common  present  enemy  is  instinctive — a  matter  of 
impulse,  which  we  share  with  the  brutes.  We  leave 
our  humble  brother  a  little  way  when  we  make  the 
alliance  an  offensive,  defensive  one,  and  altogether, 
when  we  organize  a  permanent  union  to  promote 
the  uses  of  peace.  Here  the  highest  intelligence 
and  something  higher  than  intelligence — unselfish 
ness,  a  regard  for  others,  an  appreciation  of  the 
common  good,  as  the  highest  good,  is  essential.  The 
history  of  the  colonies  had  been  characterized  by 
a  constant  struggle  for  local  government.  The  af 
fections  of  the  people  had  centered  there.  It  had 
been  the  source  of  their  most  prized  blessings,  and, 
as  they  believed,  their  defense  against  tyranny. 
Their  experience  of  government  outside  the  colony 
had  been  a  sad  one.  It  had  always  taken  the  form 
of  oppressive  and  selfish  meddling.  It  had  been 
often  brutal;  and  had  become  the  object  of  their 


THE    CONFEDERATION" 

watchful  jealousy.  Of  a  beneficent  and  central  rep 
resentative  government,  that  should  leave  all  local 
matters  in  local  control,  while  administering  com 
mon  affairs  for  the  common  good,  they  had  had  no 
experience,  and  the  world  none  that  was  satisfac 
tory.  Mr.  Bancroft  well  says:  "They  had  rightly 
been  jealous  of  extending  the  supremacy  of  En 
gland,  because  it  was  a  government  outside  of 
themselves;  they  now  applied  that  jealousy  to  one 
another,  forgetting  that  the  general  power  would  be 
in  their  own  hands." 

Still  there  were  many  very  pleasant  and  very 
noble  manifestations  of  sympathy  and  brotherhood 
between  the  colonies.  The  bells  tolled  in  Virginia 
for  the  sorrows  of  Massachusetts,  and  the  injuries 
specially  directed  against  her  were  scheduled  as 
common  injuries.  But,  when  the  articles  of  a  per 
manent  union  came  to  be  settled,  jealousy  and  self 
ishness  again  asserted  their  malign  presence  and  in 
fluence,  and  well-nigh  made  vain  the  work  of 
Washington  and  the  continental  congress  and  army. 

The  dean  of  Gloucester  wrote:  "As  to  the  fu 
ture  grandeur  of  America  and  its  being  a  rising 
empire,  under  one  head,  whether  republican  or  mon 
archical,  it  is  one  of  the  idlest  and  most  visionary 
notions  that  was  ever  conceived  even  by  writers  of 
romance.  The  mutual  antipathies  and  clashing  in 
terests  of  the  Americans;  their  difference  of  gov 
ernments,  habitudes  and  manners,  indicate  that  they 


I3O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

will  have  no  common  center  of  union  and  no  com 
mon  interest.  They  never  can  be  united  into  one 
compact  empire  under  any  species  of  government 
whatever;  a  disunited  people  until  the  end  of  time, 
suspicious  and  distrustful  of  each  other,  they  will 
be  divided  and  subdivided  into  little  common 
wealths  or  principalities,  according  to  natural  bound 
aries,  by  great  bays  of  the  sea,  and  by  vast  rivers, 
lakes  and  ridges  of  mountains." 

The  long  delay  which  preceded  the  adoption  of 
the  articles  of  confederation  indicates  that  from  a 
domestic  point  of  view  the  urgency  was  not  felt  by 
the  colonies.  The  revolutionary  government,  repre 
sented  by  congress,  was  in  the  exercise  of  per 
haps  even  larger  powers  than  those  proposed  to 
be  conferred  upon  it  by  the  articles  of  confeder 
ation.  A  revolutionary  government,  being  one  of 
necessity,  is  not  restrained  in  its  powers,  other 
wise  than  by  the  will  of  those  who  have  instituted 
it.  It  probably  seemed  to  many  that  the  questions 
involved  in  a  peace  settlement  and  perfect  union 
might  well  abide  the  issue  of  the  war;  and  it  seems 
to  be  quite  probable,  but  for  the  necessity  which 
became  more  and  more  apparent  and  more  and 
more  urgent,  of  presenting  to  the  outside  world  an 
organized  national  government,  that  the  adoption  of 
the  articles  of  confederation  might  have  been  yet 
further  postponed.  The  congress  had  very  early  sent 
its  diplomatic  representatives  to  the  continent;  and 


THE   CONFEDERATION  131 

they  had  opened  negotiations  which  had  made  more 
or  less  progress  with  France,  Holland,  and  Spain, 
involving  loans  of  money  and  schemes  of  commer 
cial  treaties,  which  should  recompense  the  risks 
which  the  friendliness  of  these  governments  toward 
the  colonies  involved.  Large  loans  had  been  se 
cured  upon  the  pledge  of  a  national  credit.  These 
pledges  ran  for  their  redemption  into  peace  times. 
They  were  in  fact,  if  not  in  form,  conditioned  upon 
the  independence  of  the  united  colonies  as  a  nation. 
The  confidence  of  our  foreign  friends  was  being 
shaken  by  the  delay  in  the  adoption  of  a  plan  of 
government,  and  by  the  manifestations  of  jealous 
unfriendliness  between  the  colonies.  Their  demand 
that  the  colonies  should  subscribe  and  publish  a  plan 
of  government  was  imperious.  The  efforts  of  En 
gland  to  treat  separately  with  the  states  greatly 
alarmed  our  friends.  These  overtures,  to  be  sure, 
had  in  every  instance  been  scornfully  rejected;  Gov 
ernor  Trumbull,  of  Connecticut,  saying  that  such 
proposals  should  be  addressed  to  the  supreme  au 
thority,  the  congress  of  the  United  States. 

Lord  North  had  taken  notice  in  parliament  of 
the  failure  to  ratify  the  articles  of  confederation, 
and  had  based  upon  this  fact  conclusions  unfavor 
able  to  the  American  cause.  The  adhesion  of 
Maryland  to  the  confederation  was  largely  based 
upon  such  considerations  as  these.  It  was  expressly 
recited  that  she  was  induced  to  forego  her  objec- 


132  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

tions  because  "the  enemies  of  the  country  took  ad 
vantage  of  the  circumstance  to  disseminate  opinions 
of  an  ultimate  dissolution  of  the  union." 

The  address  of  congress  accompanying  the  arti 
cles  of  confederation,  contained  this  suggestion: 
"More  than  any  other  consideration,  it  will  con 
found  our  foreign  enemies  *  *  *  and  add 
weight  and  respect  to  our  councils  at  home  and  to 
our  treaties  abroad." 

But,  after  all,  and  notwithstanding  the  govern 
ment  now  organized  under  the  articles  of  confed 
eration  was  called  "a  perpetual  union",  it  was  in 
fact  little  more  than  an  emergency  government,  de 
riving  all  of  its  practical  force  from  the  pressure 
of  a  common  danger,  from  external  rather  than  in 
ternal  forces.  Its  efficiency  diminished  in  the  ratio 
of  the  success  of  the  continental  arms,  and  disap 
peared  altogether  with  the  treaty  of  peace.  It  suf 
ficed  only  so  long  as  an  urgent  self-interest  sup 
ported  the  recommendation  of  congress,  so  long  as 
the  conflicts  of  small  interests  were  held  in  abey 
ance  by  the  supreme  present  demands  of  a  larger 
common  interest. 

As  I  have  already  said,  the  articles  rather  lim 
ited  than  enlarged  the  powers  of  congress.  Mr. 
Winsor,  in  his  article  upon  the  confederation,  says: 
"The  fact  was  that  congress,  before  1781,  with  no 
defined  powers,  stretching  what  it  had  as  it  could, 


THE    CONFEDERATION  133 

was  stronger  than  it  became  when  those  powers 
were  defined  under  the  confederation." 

The  inadequacy  of  the  plan  of  confederation  had 
been  demonstrated  in  the  long  interval  between  its 
adoption  by  congress  and  its  ratification  by  the  col 
onies.  "A  government  by  supplication,"  as  Ran 
dolph  afterwards  described  it,  whether  administered 
under  a  written  constitution,  or  under  a  revolution 
ary  organization,  was  in  everything  shamefully  in 
adequate  for  all  national  purposes. 

The  two  subjects  that  presented  the  chief  elements 
of  difference  in  the  debate  in  congress  on  the  arti 
cles  of  confederation,  were  the  basis  of  representa 
tion  in  congress,  and  the  question  of  state  boun 
daries,  involving  the  question  of  the  ownership  of 
the  vast  western  domain  over  which  an  ignorant 
geography  had  stretched  the  boundaries  of  some  of 
the  early  colonies.  It  is  not  my  purpose  here  even 
to  outline  the  debate  upon  these  questions. 

The  articles  do  not,  either  in  form  or  substance, 
attract  our  admiration.  The  defects  were  so  glaring 
and  radical  that  Hamilton's  characterization  of  it 
as  a  "senseless  and  futile  confederation"  was  hardly 
too  severe.  The  instrument  opens  by  providing  a 
severe  rule  of  interpretation:  "Each  state  retains 
*  *  *  every  power,  jurisdiction  and  right  which 
is  not,  by  this  confederation,  expressly  delegated  to 
the  United  States  in  congress  assembled."  No  room 


134  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

was  to  be  left  for  the  assumption  of  implied  pow 
ers;  jealous  strictness,  rather  than  a  beneficial  con 
struction,  was  to  be  the  rule.  All  the  powers  granted 
by  the  articles  were  lodged  in  the  congress.  The 
statesmen  who  framed  this  plan  of  government  were 
not  unfamiliar  with  the  threefold  division  of  the 
powers  of  government.  Such  of  the  states  as  had 
already  framed  their  constitutions  had  adopted  this 
plan;  and  it  had  been  in  use  almost  from  the  begin 
ning  in  the  colonies.  A  governor  or  chief  execu 
tive,  with  a  legislature  consisting  generally  of  two 
branches  or  houses,  and  a  judiciary  distinct  from 
both,  was  a  familiar  organization;  yet  in  the  arti 
cles  of  confederation,  no  provision  was  made  for  a 
separate  executive;  and  the  exceptional  form  of  a 
legislature  consisting  of  a  single  branch  was  adopted. 
Only  the  feeblest  and  most  limited  judicial  powers 
were  given  to  the  union.  Congress  was  authorized 
to  appoint  courts  "for  the  trial  of  piracies  and  fel 
onies  committed  on  the  high  seas,"  and  courts  for 
"receiving  and  determining  finally  appeals  in  all 
cases  of  capture."  The  congress  itself  was  made 
"the  last  resort  on  appeal"  in  all  disputes  between 
the  states,  "concerning  boundary,  jurisdiction,  or 
any  other  cause  whatever."  An  executive  depart 
ment  was  apparently  so  impossible  as  not  to  have 
been  seriously  thought  of.  A  president  from  any 
state  would,  it  was  thought,  unduly  magnify  the 
power  and  importance  of  that  state;  and  was 


THE    CONFEDERATION  135 

wholly  inadmissible.  Every  state  must  participate 
on  a  basis  of  absolute  equality  in  every  act  of 
government.  Not  only  was  the  congress  so  organ 
ized;  but  the  "committee  of  the  states"  which 
was  to  sit  in  the  recess  of  congress  was  made 
to  consist  of  one  from  each  state.  The  special 
committees  appointed  by  congress  generally  took 
the  same  organization.  The  delegates  were  to  be 
paid  by  their  respective  states;  and  so  fearful  were 
the  states  that  their  delegates  might,  from  long 
service,  become  unduly  attached  to  the  union,  that 
it  was  provided  that  the  term  should  be  one  year,  and 
that  no  person  should  serve  as  a  delegate  "for  more 
than  three  years  in  any  term  of  six  years."  And 
further  to  limit  the  independent  action  of  the  dele 
gates  the  power  of  the  states  to  recall  them  at  any 
time  and  to  send  others  in  their  stead  was  reserved. 
The  early  state  constitutions  contained  similar  lim 
itations,  as  to  the  delegates  in  congress;  and  the 
same  spirit  appears  in  the  provision  that  the  presi 
dent  of  congress  should  not  serve  as  such  for  more 
than  one  year  in  any  term  of  three  years.  The  ad 
ministrative  functions  of  government  were  at  first 
discharged  directly  by  congress.  Contracts  large 
and  small  were  negotiated  and  voted  in  the  full 
body.  Let  us  take  a  sample  day  from  the  Journal: 
(Nov.  6,  1775.) 

"The  committee  on  claims  reported  that  there  is 
due: 


136  VIEWS   OF  AN  EX-PRESIDENT 

"To  John  Forbes,  for  goods  and  necessaries  de 
livered  to  several  rifle  companies,  the  sum  of  35  II 
10,  equal  to  94.9  dollars,  of  which  sum  Capt.  Clug- 
gage  ought  to  be  charged  with  6  2  10,  and  Captain 
Chambers  with  4  10,  the  remainder  to  the  conti 
nent;  that  this  is  to  be  paid  per  order  to  Blair 
M'Clenachan. 

"To  Jane  Allen,  the  sum  of  47  o  7,  and  the  Ven- 
dal  Lands  the  sum  of  2  o  o,  both  sums  being  130.7 
dollars,  and  that  the  same  be  paid,  per  order,  to 
Henry  Wisner,  Esq.,  and  be  charged  to  the  con 
tinent. 

"To  Judah  Harbow  7  12  4,  and  to  Captain  Jack 
son  13  4  6,  for  necessaries  furnished  several  rifle 
companies,  and  that  both  sums  be  paid,  per  order, 
to  Henry  Wisner,  Esq.,  and  charged  to  the  conti 
nent,  being  52.1  dollars. 

"To  Andrew  Graff,  for  wagonage,  the  sum  of  27 
2  6,  and  to  Christopher  Crawford,  for  blankets,  the 
sum  of  6  15,  both  which  sums  to  be  paid,  per  order, 
to  George  Graff,  and  charged  to  the  continent,  be 
ing  90.3  dollars. 

"To  Richard  Backhouse,  for  wagonage,  the  sum 
of  51,  being  136  dollars.. 

"To  Miles  and  Wister,  by  sundry  certificates,  26  6 
4,  equal  to  70.1  dollars,  of  which  13  10  be  charged  to 
Captain  Rice's  company,  and  35  to  Captain  Cres- 
sop's  company;  the  remainder  to  the  continent. 

"To    Frederick    Leinbach,    by    sundry    certificates, 


THE    CONFEDERATION  137 

'58  ii  5,  equal  to  156.2  dollars;  of  which  4  13  6 
to  be  charged  to  Captain  Price,  3  15  to  Captain  Stev 
enson,  6  15  i  to  commissary  Biddle,  until  it  appears 
to  be  otherwise  accounted  for,  and  the  remainder 
to  the  continent,  to  be  paid,  per  order,  to  George 
Schlosser. 

"To  John  Murrow,  for  goods  delivered  to  Captain 
Stevenson,  71  18  10,  to  be  paid,  per  order,  to  George 
Davis,  and  charged  to  said  Stevenson,  being  191.8 
dollars. 

"To  Robert  Erwin,  for  wagonage,  169  9  3,  equal 
to  451.9  dollars. 

"To  Timothy  Matlack,  money  by  him  paid  to 
Joseph  Brown,  an  express  to  Cambridge,  17  4  I, 
equal  to  45.9  dollars. 

"To  Jasper  Stimes  and  Abraham  Storm,  for  pro 
visions  and  carriage  furnished  by  them  to  the  rifle 
companies  14  9  2,  New  York  currency,  36.1  dol 
lars,  to  be  paid,  per  order,  to  John  Alsqo,  Esq. 

"Ordered   that   the   above   sums   be   paid." 

Soon,  however,  boards  composed  of  members  of 
congress  were  instituted;  but  their  powers  were 
not  well  denned,  and  the  supervision  of  congress 
was  constant  and  particular.  A  little  later  a  board 
of  war,  composed  of  five  members,  not  members 
of  congress,  was  established.  A  committee  of 
claims,  one  from  each  colony,  developed  into  a 
crude  treasury  department;  and  other  executive 
functions  were  similarly  administered.  But  the 


138  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

lack  of  a  constitutional  executive  department,  with 
defined  but  independent  powers,  placed  a  heavy 
and  well-nigh  fatal  weight  upon  the  energies  of 
the  union.  The  powers  of  congress,  under  the 
articles  of  confederation,  were  these:  The  ex 
clusive  right  of  determining  on  peace  and  war, 
save  when  a  state  was  invaded  or  about  to  be 
invaded;  of  receiving  and  sending  ambassadors, 
and  entering  into  treaties;  of  deciding  questions 
of  capture  and  prize;  of  granting  letters  of  marque 
and  reprisal,  "in  times  of  peace;"  the  states  being  au 
thorized  to  issue  such  letters  after  a  declaration  of 
war  by  the  United  States;  of  appointing  courts  for 
trial  of  offenses  on  the  seas,  and  of  appeals  in  prize 
cases;  to  be  the  tribunal  of  last  resort  in  con 
troversies  between  states;  to  regulate  the  value  and 
alloy  of  coin,  whether  struck  by  the  United  States 
or  the  states;  of  fixing  the  standard  of  weights  and 
measures;  regulating  the  trade  and  managing  all  af 
fairs  with  the  Indians,  "not  members  of  any  of  the 
states,  provided  that  the  legislative  right  of  any  state 
within  its  own  limits  be  not  infringed  or  violated;" 
of  establishing  and  regulating  postofHces  and  post 
routes;  of  appointing  all  officers  of  the  land  forces, 
except  regimental  officers,  all  officers  of  the  naval 
forces,  and  of  making  regulations  for  the  army 
and  navy;  to  appoint  a  committee  to  sit  in  the  recess 
of  congress,  and  such  civil  officers  as  might  be  neces 
sary;  to  ascertain  and  apportion  the  moneys  needed, 


THE    CONFEDERATION  139 

and  to  appropriate  the  same;  to  borrow  money  or 
emit  bills  on  the  credit  of  the  United  States;  to 
build  a  navy;  to  fix  the  land  forces  and  make  requisi 
tion  for  state  quotas. 

There  were  some  important  express  limitations, 
however,  placed  upon  these  general  powers.  The 
power  to  negotiate  commercial  treaties  was  so 
limited  that  except  as  to  "treaties  already  pro 
posed  by  congress,  to  the  courts  of  France  and 
Spain,"  the  power  of  each  state  to  levy  im 
posts  and  duties  upon  foreign  merchandise  or  to 
prohibit  the  importation  or  exportation  of  any 
merchandise  at  its  pleasure  was  not  restrained, 
save  by  the  provision  that  these  duties  should  be 
equal  as  between  foreigners  and  its  own  citizens. 
Nearly  all  of  the  important  powers  given  were  fur 
ther  limited  to  be  exercised  only  by  vote  of  nine 
states;  and  over  all  was  the  practical  and  destruc 
tive,  though  unexpressed  limitation,  that  no  act  of 
congress,  even  within  the  powers  most  clearly  con 
ferred  could  be  executed  in  any  state  until  the  state 
legislature  had  added  its  sanction.  There  can  be 
no  government  in  any  just  sense  without  a  body  of 
citizens  upon  which  it  can  directly  act — citizens  who 
owe  to  it  a  primary  allegiance  and  upon  whose  per 
sons  and. estates  it  may  lay  its  restraints  and  its  exac 
tions.  Under  the  confederation  congress  had  no 
power  to  draft  a  single  man  for  military  service,  nor 
to  lay  and  collect  a  single  dollar  of  taxes,  direct  or 


I4O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

indirect.  It  is  true  that  the  congressional  resolves 
might  have  been  mandatory  in  their  form;  "re 
quired"  might  have  been  substituted  for  "request 
ed;"  for  the  articles  bound  the  states  to  furnish 
quotas  of  men,  and  allotments  of  money  as  appor 
tioned  by  congress.  Article  XIII  was  as  follows: 
"Every  state  shall  abide  by  the  determinations  of 
the  United  States  in  congress  assembled,  on  all 
questions  which  by  this  confederation  are  submitted 
to  them.  And  the  articles  of  this  confederation 
shall  be  inviolably  observed  by  every  state,  and 
the  union  shall  be  perpetual;  nor  shall  any  alter 
ation  at  any  time  hereafter  be  made  in  any  of  them; 
unless  such  alteration  be  agreed  to  in  a  congress  of 
the  United  States,  and  be  afterward  confirmed  by 
the  legislature  of  every  state." 

But,  as  the  use  of  an  armed  force  against  a  de 
linquent  state  was  the  only  method  of  enforcing  a 
requisition,  congress  wisely  used  the  politer  term 
"request."  Notwithstanding  this  clear  provision  in 
the  articles,,  binding  the  states  to  comply  with  the 
resolves  of  congress,  instances  were  not  infrequent 
where  a  state,  not  by  inaction  only,  but  by  affirma 
tive  action  and  explicit  declaration,  refused  to  abide 
by  the  determination  of  congress,  on  questions  clear 
ly  by  the  articles  submitted  to  it. 

In  December,  1779,  the  legislature  of  Virginia 
passed  a  resolution  declaring  "that  the  legislature 
of  this  commonwealth  are  greatly  alarmed  at  the 


THE    CONFEDERATION 

assumption  of  power  lately  exercised  by  congress. 
While  the  right  of  recommending  measures  to  each 
state  by  congress  is  admitted,  we  contend  for  that  of 
judging  of  their  utility  and  expediency,  and,  of 
course,  either  to  approve  or  reject.  Making  any 
state  answerable  for  not  agreeing  to  any  of  its 
recommendations  would  establish  a  dangerous  pre 
cedent  against  the  authority  of  the  legislature  and 
the  sovereignty  of  the  separate  states." 

And  in  the  matter  of  appeals  in  prize  cases  New 
Hampshire  attempted  by  law  to  cut  off  the  appeal 
expressly  provided  for  in  the  articles  of  confedera 
tion. 

We  have  had  a  good  deal  of  modern  talk  about 
the  power  of  the  nation  to  "coerce  a  state;"  but  the 
thought  is  not  only  inaccurate  but  obsolete.  Under 
the  confederation  such  a  question  might — indeed, 
did  arise ;  but  *under  the  national  constitution  we  lay 
exactions  and  visit  penalties  upon  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  No  commission  under  a  state  seal; 
no  resolve  of  a  state  legislature,  can  stand  between 
the  national  authority  and  the  citizen  who  resists 
it.  No  power  was  given  to  congress  by  the  articles 
of  confederation  to  regulate  commerce.  Each  state 
made  its  own  tariff  and  took  the  receipts  from  cus 
toms  into  its  own  treasury.  As  a  source  of  revenue 
this  power  was  essential  to  the  union;  but  it  was 
much  more  than  a  revenue  question.  It  was  the 
sine  qua  non  of  an  enduring 'union.  We  who  have  so 


142  VIEWS  OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

much  division  over  one  tariff  can  appreciate  the  in 
describable  confusion  and  disaster  resulting  from 
thirteen  customs  schedules.  Until  there  was  unity 
here  there  could  be  none  elsewhere.  The  competi 
tions  between  the  ports  of  different  states  begat  new 
and  revived  old  jealousies  and  animosities,  and  con 
fused  traders  by  their  intricacies  and  frequent 
changes.  We  could  have  no  standing  among  com 
mercial  nations  until  the  power  to  regulate  com 
merce,  by  granting  favors  or  imposing  exactions, 
and  instituting  a  uniform  schedule  of  duties  was 
conferred.  Our  commerce  was  destroyed  during 
the  revolutionary  war;  and  yet  the  absence  of 
power  in  congress  to  regulate  this  subject  left  the 
enemy  that  had  wrought  its  destruction  at  liberty 
to  shut  out  our  ships  from  the  trade  of  the  West 
India  colonies,  without  fear  of  the  retaliatory  re 
strictions  which  her  conduct  suggested  and  de 
manded. 

Story  says:  "While,  for  instance,  British  ships 
with  their  commodities  had  every  admission  into 
our  ports,  American  ships  and  exports  were  loaded 
with  heavy  exactions  or  prohibited  from  entry  into 
British  ports:  We  were,  therefore,  the  victims  of  our 
own  imbecility,  and  reduced  to  a  complete  subjec 
tion  to  the  commercial  regulations  of  other  coun 
tries,  notwithstanding  our  boasts  of  freedom  and 
independence." 

John  Adams,  writing  from  France  in  May,   1785, 


THE    CONFEDERATION  143 

to  Secretary  Jay,  gives  a  graphic  description  of  the 
embarrassments  and  humiliation  which  our  foreign 
representatives  suffered.  He  says: 

"But  you  will  see,  by  a  letter  from  the  Duke  of 
Dorset,  which  your  ministers  here  some  time  since 
transmitted,  that  the  British  cabinet  have  conceived 
doubts,  whether  congress  have  power  to  treat  of 
commercial  matters,  and  whether  our  states  should 
not  separately  grant  their  full  powers  to  a  minister. 
I  think  it  may  be  taken  for  granted,  that  the  states 
will  never  think  of  sending  separate  ambassadors, 
or  of  authorizing  directly  those  appointed  by  con 
gress.  The  idea  of  thirteen  plenipotentiaries  meet 
ing  together  in  a  congress  at  every  court  in  Europe, 
each  with  a  full  power  and  distinct  instructions  from 
his  state,  presents  to  view  such  a  picture  of  con 
fusion,  altercation,  expense,  and  endless  delay,  as 
must  convince  every  man  of  its  impracticability. 
Neither  is  there  less  absurdity  in  supposing  that  all 
the  states  should  unite  in  the  separate  election  of 
the  same  man,  since  there  is  not,  never  was  and 
never  will  be  a  citizen  whom  each  state  would  sepa 
rately  prefer  for  conducting  the  negotiation.  It  is 
equally  inconceivable  that  each  state  should  sepa 
rately  send  a  full  power  and  separate  instructions 
to  the  ministers  appointed  by  congress.  What  a 
heterogeneous  mass  of  papers,  full  of  different  ob 
jects,  various  views,  and  inconsistent  and  contra 
dictory  orders,  must  such  a  man  pull  out  of  his 


144  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

portfolio,  from  time  to  time,  to  regulate  his  judg 
ment  and  his  conduct!  He  must  be  accountable,  too, 
to  thirteen  different  tribunals  for  his  conduct;  a 
situation  in  which  no  man  would  ever  consent  to 
stand,  if  it  is  possible,  which  I  do  not  believe,  that 
any  state  should  ever  wish  for  such  a  system.  I 
suppose  too  that  the  confederation  has  already  set 
tled  all  these  points,  and  that  congress  alone  have 
authority  to  treat  with  foreign  powers,  and  to  ap 
point  ambassadors  and  foreign  ministers,  and  that 
the  states  have  separately  no  power  to  do  either. 
Yet  it  is  plain  from  the  Duke  of  Dorset's  letter,  that 
the  British  cabinet  have  conceived  a  different  opin 
ion.  This  is  to  be  accounted  for,  only  by  conjectur 
ing  that  they  have  put  an  erroneous  construction  on 
the  limitation,  restriction,  or  exception  in  the  arti 
cle  of  our  confederation,  which  gives  to  congress 
the  power  of  appointing  ambassadors  and  making 
treaties.  This  limitation  is  confined  to  treaties  of 
commerce;  all  others  congress  have  full  power  to 
make.  From  this  limitation,  however,  will  proba 
bly  arise  a  great  deal  of  difficulty  and  delay  to  me. 
If  the  British  ministry  wish  and  seek  for  delays  this 
will  be  their  pretext.  But,  even  if  they  should  wish 
for  despatch,  which  is  not  likely,  they  may  have 
propositions  to  make  which  will  fall  within  the  lim 
itation;  and,  in  such  cases,  it  will  not  be  in  my  pow 
er  to  agree  with  them.  I  can  only  transmit  the 
propositions  to  congress,  who  will  perhaps  trans- 


THE    CONFEDERATION  145 

mit  them  to  the  states;  and  no  man  can  foresee  when 
the  answers  will  be  received  so  that  the  business 
can  be  brought  to  a  conclusion. 

"It  is  very  possible  that  the  cabinet  of  St.  James 
may  decline  even  entering  into  any  conference  at 
all  upon  the  subject  of  a  treaty  of  commerce,  until 
the  powers  of  congress  are  enlarged.'* 

And  Washington  wrote  of  this  matter  as  follows: 
"America  -must  appear  in  a  very  contemptible  point 
of  view  to  those  with  whom  she  was  endeavoring  to 
form  commercial  treaties  without  possessing  the 
means  of  carrying  them  into  effect.  They  must  see 
and  feel  that  the  union,  or  the  states  individu 
ally,  are  sovereign  as  best  suits  their  purposes. 
In  a  word,  that  we  are  a  nation  to-day  and 
thirteen  to-morrow.  Who  will  treat  with  us  on 
such  terms  ?" 

The  English  statesmen  saw  our  fatal  inability. 
Lord  Sheffield  said:  "There  should  be  no  treaty 
with  the  American  states  because  they  will  not  place 
England  on  a  better  footing  than  France  and  Hol 
land,  and  equal  rights  will  be  enjoyed,  of  course, 
without  a  treaty.  *  *  *  It  will  not  be  an  easy 
matter  to  bring  the  American  states  to  act  as  a  na 
tion  ;  they  are  not.  to  be  feared  as  such  by  us.  The 
confederation  does  not  enable  congress  to  form  more 
than  general  treaties;  when  treaties  become  neces 
sary,  they  must  be  made  with  the  states  separately. 
Each  state  has  reserved  every  power  relative  to  im- 


146  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

posts,  prohibitions,  duties,  etc.,  to  itself.  If  the 
American  states  choose  to  send  consuls,  receive  them 
and  send  a  consul  to  each  state.  Each  state  will  soon 
enter  into  all  necessary  regulations  with  the  consul, 
and  this  is  the  whole  that  is  necessary." 

So  apparent  was  the  necessity  of  a  single  control 
of  these  matters  that  the  congress  had,  as  we  have 
seen  in  the  resolves  of  1774,  declared  that  "from  the 
necessity  of  the  case"  they  cheerfully  consented  to 
the  regulation  by  parliament  of  their  "external  com 
merce."  But  when  the  confederacy  was  formed  this 
necessary  power  was  withheld  from  a  congress  com 
posed  of  delegates  from  each  state  and  in  which  each 
state  had  an  equal  voice.  The  representation  of 
New  Jersey  to  the  congress,  in  June,  1777,  of  the 
objections  of  that  colony  to  the  articles  of  confed 
eration,  contained  this  paragraph,  which  is  an  early 
and  forcible  presentation  of  this  matter:  "By  the 
sixth  and  ninth  articles,  the  regulation  of  trade 
seems  to  be  committed  to  the  several  states  within 
their  separate  jurisdiction,  in  such  a  degree  as  may 
involve  many  difficulties  and  embarrassments,  and 
be  attended  with  injustice  to  some  states  in  the  union. 
We  are  of  opinion  that  the  sole  and  exclusive  pow 
er  of  regulating  the  trade  of  the  United  States  with 
foreign  nations  ought  to  be  clearly  vested  in  the  con 
gress,  and  that  the  revenue  arising  from  all  duties 
and  customs  imposed  thereon  ought  to  be  ap 
propriated  to  the  building,  equipping  and  manning 


THE    CONFEDERATION  147 

a  navy,  for  the  protection  of  the  trade  and  defense 
of  the  coasts,  and  to  such  other  public  and  general 
purposes  as  to  the  congress  shall  seem  proper,  and 
for  the  common  benefit  of  the  states." 

This  suggestion  was  rejected,  but  the  "necessity 
of  the  case"  remained,  and  its  voice  became  more 
imperious  as  the  years  went  on,  until  it  was  recog 
nized  and  fully  provided  for  in  Article  I,  section  8, 
of  the  constitution.  The  obstinacy  with  which  some 
of  the  states  held  on  to  the  power  over  commerce,  of 
which  they  could  make  no  really  beneficial  use,  even 
in  the  most  selfish  sense,  is  inexplicable  to  us  who 
have  seen  the  happy  influence  of  a  national  use  of 
that  power.  Strenuous  efforts  were  made,  before 
and  after  the  adoption  of  the  articles  of  confedera 
tion,  to  get  the  consent  of  the  states  to  the  levying 
of  an  impost  duty  by  congress.  In  February,  1781, 
congress  asked  the  states  for  power  to  lay  a  duty 
upon  imposts  to  pay  the  public  debt  and  to  continue 
only  until  it  should  be  paid.  Rhode  Island  selfishly 
blocked  the  way,  though  the  cause  of  independence 
was  in  extremis  from  a  lack  of  revenue.  The  rea 
sons  given  were  that  the  impost  would  bear  unduly 
upon  the  commercial  states;  that  officers  unknown 
to  the  constitution  would  be  introduced;  and  that  a 
revenue  not  directly  derived  from  a  grant  of  the 
states  would  render  congress  independent  and  be 
dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the  United  States. 
While  congress,  by  a  committee,  was  trying  to  re- 


148  VIEWS  OF  AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

move  these  unpatriotic  objections,  Virginia — which 
had  assented — under  the  leadership  of  Richard  Hen 
ry  Lee,  withdrew  its  assent,  placing  this  action 
upon  the  declaration  that  such  a  tax  would  be  in 
jurious  to  its  sovereignty  and  might  prove  destruc 
tive  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  people.  Only 
the  compelling  and  scourging  intervention  of  provi 
dence  opened  the  way  to  union  and  safety,  and 
brought  to  naught  these  freaks  of  pride  and  selfish 
ness. 

In  April,  1783,  congress  asked  the  states  for  au 
thority,  for  a  period  of  twenty-five  years,  to  lay  cer 
tain  duties  on  specific  articles,  and  a  general  duty 
of  five  per  cent,  ad  valorem  on  all  others.  The 
emergency  was  stated  by  congress  in  the  following 
terms:  "It  has  become  the  duty  of  congress  to  de 
clare  most  explicitly  that  the  crisis  has  arrived 
when  the  people  of  these  United  States,  by  whose 
will  and  for  whose  benefit  the  federal  government 
was  instituted,  must  decide  whether  they  will  sup 
port  their  rank  as  a  nation  by  maintaining  the  pub 
lic  faith  at  home  or  abroad;  or  whether,  for  want 
of  a  timely  exertion  in  establishing  a  general  reve 
nue,  and  thereby  giving  strength  to  the  confed 
eracy,  they  will  hazard  not  only  the  existence  of 
the  union,  but  of  those  great  and  invaluable  privi 
leges  for  which  they  have  so  arduously  and  so  hon 
orably  contended." 

In  1784  congress  requested  the  states  to  vest  the 


THE    CONFEDERATION  149 

general  government  with  power,  for  fifteen  years,  to 
prescribe  some  general  regulations  of  commerce,  not 
involving  revenue,  but  intended  solely  to  give  effect 
to  our  commercial  treaties  and  to  protect  our  peo 
ple  against  the  hostile  provisions  of  the  navigation 
acts  of  Great  Britain. 

Neither  of  these  requests  was  granted.  The 
appeal  of  1783  was  defeated  by  the  refusal  of  New 
York  to  concur  with  the  other  states.  That  of  1784 
had  no  response. 

The  inadequacy  of  the  confederation,  and  the  re 
fusal  of  the  states  to  grant  powers  that  would  have 
given  some  force  and  dignity  to  the  national  gov 
ernment,  drove  out  of  congress  many  of  the  ablest 
public  men.  The  members  could  not  but  feel  as  a 
personal  humiliation  the  powerlessness  of  the  body 
to  respond  to  the  urgent  and  even  pathetic  appeals 
of  the  national  creditors.  Washington,  in  one  of 
his  letters,  notices  the  absence  of  these  men  from 
the  national  councils;  but  it  was  quite  natural  that 
they  should  prefer  to  serve  in  the  assemblies  of  their 
own  states  and  to  participate  in  decrees  that  could 
be  put  into  execution.  It  is  said  that,  at  no  time 
between  October,  1783,  and  June,  1784,  were  nine 
states  present  by  their  representatives  in  congress. 
Nothing  could  more  strongly  emphasize  the  decay 
of  the  confederacy.  Mr.  Winsor  says:  "Congress 
had  not  the  inherent  dignity  to  allure  statesmen, 
nor  did  it  offer  temptations  even  to  politicians." 


150  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

The  appeals  of  congress  and  of  Washington,  of 
the  impoverished  veterans,  driven  almost  to  frenzy 
by  want;  of  the  friendly  states  of  France  and  Hol 
land,  that  had  so  generously  supplied  our  need  by 
loans  were  all  unavailing.  The  refusal  of  New 
York  to  accede  to  the  measures  proposed  for  a  na 
tional  revenue,  it  has  been  said,  virtually  decreed 
the  dissolution  of  the  existing  government.  The 
states  had  now  finally  not  only  refused  to  give  to 
congress  a  general  power  to  regulate  commerce, 
but  even  to  concede  the  power  when  limited  to  a 
term  of  years  and  to  particular  subjects. 

The  story  of  the  discreditable  and  cruel  treatment 
of  our  creditors,  home  and  foreign,  and  especially 
of  the  veterans  of  the  war,  can  not  be  read  with 
out  shame;  but  perhaps  it  was  well  that  the  arti 
cles  of  confederation  were  not  patched  up,  and  that 
humiliation,  disaster  and  decay  should  go  on  un 
til  the  people  were  driven  to  the  adoption  of  an  ade 
quate  plan  of  government. 

The  want  of  any  power  in  congress  to  regulate 
commerce  between  the  states  was  not  so  disastrously 
and  immediately  felt,  because  it  did  not  have  any 
relation  to  revenue;  but  this  subject,  like  that  of 
foreign  commerce,  was  left  by  the  articles  of  con 
federation,  in  the  anomalous  condition  that  there 
was  no  power  of  regulation  anywhere.  The  states 
were  forbidden  to  make  treaties  with  each  other, 
and  congress  was  given  no  power  to  legislate  on 


THE    CONFEDERATION  151 

the  subject.  Some  questions  of  internal  commerce 
presented  themselves  and  added  to  the  general  con 
fusion  and  distress. 

The  articles  contain  some  general  provisions  that 
are  worthy  of  note.  The  free  inhabitants  of  each 
state  were  secured  in  all  the  privileges  and  immu 
nities  of  free  citizens  in  the  several  states;  and  in 
free  ingress  and  regress  and  all  the  privileges  of 
trade  and  commerce,  subject  to  the  same  duties  and 
restrictions  as  the  inhabitants  of  the  particular 
state.  The  reclamation  of  fugitives  from  justice 
was  provided  for.  Full  faith  and  credit  were  to  be 
given  in  each  of  the  states  to  the  records,  acts  and 
judicial  proceedings  of  the  courts  and  magistrates 
of  every  other  state.  The  subordination  of  the  sev 
eral  states  was  established  by  the  provision  that  no 
.state,  without  the  consent  of  the  United  States, 
should  send  an  embassy  to,  or  enter  into  any  confer 
ence,  or  alliance,  or  treaty,  with  any  foreign  nation; 
nor  should  any  two  states  enter  into  any  such 
treaty  or  alliance  between  themselves;  nor  engage 
in  any  war;  nor  maintain  any  ships  of  war,  or 
armed  forces  in  time  of  peace,  except  as  authorized 
by  congress. 

In  view  of  these  limitations,  it  was  wholly  in 
congruous  to  describe  the  states  as  sovereign,  either 
in  their  relations  to  each  other  or  to  the  nations  of 
the  world. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  that    article   n   provided 


152  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

for  the  admission  of  Canada  to  the  union.  It  was 
as  follows:  "Article  XI.  Canada  acceding  to  this 
confederation,  and  joining  in  the  measures  of  the 
United  States,  shall  be  admitted  into,  and  entitled 
to  all  the  advantages  of  this  union;  but  no  other 
colony  shall  be  admitted  into  the  same,  unless  such 
admission  be  agreed  to  by  nine  states." 

As  a  frame  of  government  for  peace,  the  ab 
sence  of  any  adequate  provision  for  a  federal  ju 
diciary  was  another  glaring  defect  in  the  articles  of 
confederation.  The  power  to  judge,  interpret  and 
enforce  the  constitution,  treaties  and  laws  made  by 
the  national  government,  is  essential  to  the  very  ex 
istence  of  the  government. 

Judge  Story  thus  summarizes  the  defects  of  the 
confederation:  "But  they  [the  congress]  possessed 
not  the  power  to  raise  any  revenue,  to  levy  any  tax, 
to  enforce  any  law,  to  secure  any  rights,  to  regulate 
any  trade,  or  even  the  poor  prerogative  of  command 
ing  means  to  pay  their  own  ministers  at  a  foreign 
court.  They  could  contract  debts,  but  they  were 
without  means  to  discharge  them.  They  could 
pledge  the  public  faith,  but  they  were  inca 
pable  of  redeeming  it.  They  could  enter  into  trea 
ties;  but  every  state  in  the  union  might  dispute 
them  with  impunity.  They  could  contract  alliances, 
but  could  not  command  men  or  money  to  give  them 
vigor.  They  could  institute  courts  for  piracies  and 
felonies  on  the  high  seas;  but  they  had  no  means 


THE    CONFEDERATION  153 

to  pay  either  the  judges  or  the  jurors.  In  short,  all 
powers  which  did  not  execute  themselves  were  at 
the  mercy  of  the  states,  and  might  be  trampled 
upon  at  will  with  impunity." 

These  defects,  as  I  have  said,  had  been  disclosed 
before  Maryland  ratified  the  confederation;  and  we 
wonder  why  the  accession  of  that  state  should 
have  produced  so  much  rejoicing  in  the  army  and 
throughout  the  colonies;  but  our  glance  is  a  back 
ward  one.  We  contrast  the  articles  of  confedera 
tion  with  the  perfected  constitution — the  tree  with 
the  germ — and  we  rightly  give  the  tree  the  glory; 
but  wrongly  despise  the  germ.  The  masses  are  not 
much  taught  by  philosophy;  it  does  not  reach  them; 
experience  is  their  faithful  teacher.  The  national 
^constitution,  like  the  constitutions  of  the  states,  could 
only  come  by  development.  It  was  not,  as  a  whole, 
in  the  brain  of  the  wisest  of  our  statesmen.  Jefferson, 
Hamilton,  Franklin,  Adams,  either  would  have  made 
bad  work  of  the  business  if  it  had  been  left  to 
either.  They  were  wise  to  contribute,  but  not  wise 
enough  to  complete. 

The  chief  use  and  glory  of  the  articles  of  confed 
eration  were  that,  by  and  through  them,  "a  perpet 
ual  union"  was  declared  and  subscribed  by  each  of 
the  thirteen  colonies;  and  that  the  use  of  the  scheme 
of  government  provided,  by  disclosing  its  fatal  de 
fects,  infallibly  pointed  out  the  essentials  of  a  per 
fect  union.  They  organized  a  general  representa- 


154  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

tive  government — a  shadowy  outline;  but  an  outline 
that,  when  these  suggestions  were  defined  and 
rounded,  should  be  the  most  free  and  perfect  sys 
tem  of  government  that  men  have  ever  enjoyed. 

Bancroft  says  of  it:  "A  better  one  could  not 
then  have  been  accepted;  but,  with  all  its  faults,  it 
contained  the  elements  for  the  evolution  of  a  more 
perfect  union." 


THE    INSTITUTION    OF    STATE    GOVERN 
MENTS 

SIXTH    LECTURE 
Delivered  at  Stanford  University,  April  18,  1894 

The  institution  of  state  governments  was  a  most 
important  and  necessary  step  in  the  development  of 
the  republic.  The  king  had  denounced  the  penal 
ties  of  treason  against  the  colonists;  his  armies  and 
fleets  had  inaugurated  war;  and  the  old  forms  of 
oath  and  writ  had  become  incongruous.  Independ 
ence  had  not  yet  been  declared,  but  local  affairs 
were  in  disorder.  The  assemblies  had  been  pro 
rogued,  and  the  royal  governors  had  abandoned 
their  duties,  or  sought  to  exercise  them  from  gar 
risoned  towns  or  from  the  decks  of  royal  cruisers. 
Committees  of  safety  and  defense  had  by  popular 
acquiescence  assumed  some  measure  of  public  direc 
tion  and  control;  but  the  necessity  for  a  more  for 
mal  organization  of  the  powers  of  government  was 
pressing  hard  upon  many  of  the  colonies,  especially 
upon  Massachusetts.  It  was,  however,  well  under- 

ISS 


v 


156  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

stood  by  the  people  of  Massachusetts  that  this  for 
ward  step  to  which  their  necessities  so  strongly 
pressed  them  was  only  to  be  ventured  in  unison 
with  the  other  colonies. 

On  June  2,  1775,  John  Hancock,  the  president, 
laid  before  the  congress  a  letter  from  the  provincial 
convention  of  Massachusetts,  dated  May  16.  This 
letter  set  forth  the  difficulties  they  suffered  for  want 
of  a  regular  form  of  government,  and  requested 
"explicit  advice  respecting  the  taking  up  and  exer 
cising  the  powers  of  civil  government,"  and  declar 
ing  their  readiness  to  "submit  to  such  a  general 
plan  as  the  congress  may  direct  for  the  colonies." 

In  response  to  this  communication,  the  congress 
resolved,  on  the  ninth  of  June,  as  follows: 

"That  no  obedience  being  due  to  the  act  of  par 
liament  for  altering  the  charter  of  the  colony  of 
Massachusetts  Bay,  nor  to  a  governor,  or  a  lieuten 
ant-governor,  who  will  not  observe  the  directions 
of,  but  endeavor  to  subvert  that  charter,  the  gov 
ernor  and  lieutenant-governor  of  that  colony  are 
to  be  considered  as  absent,  and  their  offices  vacant; 
and  as  there  is  no  council  there,  and  the  inconven 
iences,  arising  from  the  suspension  of  the  powers 
of  government,  are  intolerable,  especially  at  a  time 
when  General  Gage  hath  actually  levied  war,  and 
is  carrying  on  hostilities,  against  his  majesty's 
peaceable  and  loyal  subjects  of  that  colony;  that,  in 
order  to  conform,  as  near  as  may  be,  to  the  spirit 


INSTITUTION   OF  STATE   GOVERNMENTS  1 57 

and  substance  of  the  charter,  it  be  recommended  to 
the  provincial  convention,  to  write  letters  to  the  in 
habitants  of  the  several  places,  which  are  entitled 
to  representation  in  assembly,  requesting  them  to 
choose  such  representatives,  and  that  the  assembly, 
when  chosen,  do  elect  councilors,  and  that  such  as 
sembly,  or  council,  exercise  the  powers  of  govern 
ment,  until  a  governor,  of  his  majesty's  appoint 
ment,  will  consent  to  govern  the  colony  according 
to  its  charter." 

This  advice  was  closely  followed  by  Massachu 
setts,  and  the  action  taken  was  declared  to  be  "in 
observance  of  the  resolve  of  the  continental  con 
gress."  The  action  was  provisional — the  govern 
ment  was  an  ad  interim  one,  and  it  followed  as  far 
as  might  be  the  lines  of  the  charter.  But  even  this 
tentative  step  was  not  taken  by  Massachusetts 
without  the  direction  of  the  general  government. 

Again,  on  October  6,  the  committee  of  corre 
spondence  of  Massachusetts  addressed  congress  and, 
after  stating  the  condition  of  the  colony — that  the 
governor  had  by  proclamation  prevented  the  meet 
ing  of  the  general  court,  and  that  all  laws  were, 
therefore  suspended — solicited  the  advice  of  con 
gress  in  the  premises. 

New  Hampshire,  following  the  course  adopted 
by  Massachusetts,  also  applied  to  congress  for  ad 
vice  and  direction  as  to  the  organization  of  a  local 
government;  and  with  deferential  patience  awaited 


158  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

the  delayed  answer.  On  October  18,  1775,  her* 
delegates  laid  before  congress  the  following  from 
their  instructions:  "We  would  have  you  immedi 
ately  use  your  utmost  endeavors  to  obtain  the  ad 
vice  and  direction  of  the  congress,  with  respect  to 
a  method  for  our  administering  justice,  and  regu 
lating  our  civil  police.  We  press  you  not  to  delay 
this  matter,  as,  its  being  done  speedily,  will  prob 
ably  prevent  the  greatest  confusion  among  us."  On 
November  3,  congress  recommended  that  New 
Hampshire  "call  a  full  and  free  representation  of 
the  people,  and  that  the  representatives,  if  they 
think  it  necessary,  establish  such  a  form  of  govern 
ment  as,  in  their  judgment,  will  best  produce  the 
happiness  of  the  people,  and  most  effectually  secure 
peace  and  good  order  in  the  province,  during  the 
continuance  of  the  present  dispute  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  colonies." 

On  November  4,  1775,  South  Carolina  received 
similar  advice,  a  provision  being  added  for  an  army 
to  defend  the  colony  at  "the  continental  expense." 

On  December  4,  1775,  in  response  to  a  com 
munication  from  Virginia,  the  congress  resolved 
"that  if  the  convention  of  Virginia  shall  find  it 
necessary  to  establish  a  form  of  government  in  that 
colony,  it  be  recommended  to  that  convention  to 
call  a  full  and  free  representation  of  the  people,  and 
that  the  said  representatives,  if  they  think  it  neces 
sary,  establish  such  form  of  government  as  in  their 


INSTITUTION   OF    STATE   GOVERNMENTS  159 

judgment  will  best  produce  the  happiness  of  the 
people,  and  most  effectually  secure  peace  and  good 
order  in  the  colony,  during  the  continuance  of  the 
present  dispute  between  Great  Britain  and  the  col 
onies." 

On  the  tenth  of  May,  1776,  congress  determined 
to  deal  generally  with  the  question  of  instituting 
state  governments  in  the  colonies,  and  accordingly 
resolved:  "That  it  be  recommended  to  the  respec 
tive  assemblies  and  conventions  of  the  united  colo 
nies,  where  no  government  sufficient  to  the  exigen 
cies  of  their  affairs  hath  been  hitherto  established, 
to  adopt  such  government  as  shall,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  representatives  of  the  people  best  conduce  to 
the  happiness  and  safety  of  their  constituents  in 
particular  and  America  in  general."  On  the  I5th 
of  May  a  preamble  to  this  resolution  was  reported 
and  adopted;  and  the  resolution  is  usually  referred 
to  that  date. 

Of  this  resolution,  John  Adams,  who  drafted  it, 
says:  "It  was,  indeed,  on  all  hands,  considered  by 
men  of  understanding  as  equivalent  to  a  declara 
tion  of  independence." 

As  the  war  progressed  and  fresh  outrages 
aroused  the  people,  opposition  to  measures  like  the 
resolution  of  May  15  was  over-borne  in  all  the 
colonies  by  popular  uprisings,  and  the  delegates  to 
congress  were  freshly  empowered  and  strengthened. 
The  expressions  from  the  several  colonies  favoring 


l6o  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

independence  and  a  confederation  usually  had  a 
limitation  like  this,  in  the  case  of  Rhode  Island: 
"Taking  the  greatest  care  to  secure  to  this  col 
ony,  in  the  strongest  and  most  perfect  manner, 
its  present  established  form,  and  all  the  powers  of 
government,  in  so  far  as  it  relates  to  its  internal 
police  and  the  conduct  of  its  own  affairs,  civil  and 
religious."  Or,  as  the  Virginia  convention  ex 
pressed  it:  To  form  a  confederation  "provided  that 
the  power  of  forming  government  for  and  the  regu 
lations  of  the  internal  concerns  of  each  colony  be  left 
to  the  colonial  legislatures." 

The  state  constitutions,  adopted  before  the  con 
federation  (November,  1777),  assumed  a  perma 
nent  union,  and  made  provision  for  local  and  do 
mestic  affairs  only.  In  the  Connecticut  act  of  1776, 
continuing  the  charter  of  1662  in  force,  there  is  this 
explicit  recognition  of  an  existing  general  govern 
ment. 

"3.  That  all  the  free  inhabitants  of  this  or  any 
other  of  the  United  States  of  America  *  *  * 
shall  enjoy  the  same  justice  and  law  within  this 
state,"  etc. 

The  first  constitution  of  Delaware  was  instituted 
under  the  resolution  of  May  15  and  went  into 
effect  September  21,  1776.  It  provided  for  the  an 
nual  election  of  delegates  to  "the  congress  of  the 
United  States  of  America" — thus  assuming  the  fact 
of  a  union, — and  that  its  life  was  to  be  concurrent 


INSTITUTION   OF   STATE   GOVERNMENTS  l6l 

with  that  of  the  state.  The  superior  authority  of 
the  acts  of  congress  in  matters  within  its  sphere 
was  declared  in  the  twenty- fourth  article,  as  follows: 

"Art.  24.  All  acts  of  assembly  in  force  in  the  state 
on  the  fifteenth  of  May  last  (and  not  hereby  altered 
or  contrary  to  the  resolutions  of  congress  *  *  *  ) 
shall  continue." 

The  preamble  of  the  constitution  of  Georgia, 
adopted  February,  1777,  recited  the  resolution  of 
congress  of  May  15  and  the  fact  that  "the  inde 
pendence  of  the  United  States  of  America"  has  been 
declared  as  the  base  from  which  it  sprang;  and  pro 
vided  for  an  appeal  in  admiralty  cases  to  the  "conti 
nental  congress,"  and  for  the  annual  election  of 
"continental  delegates." 

The  first  constitution  of  Maryland  went  into  force 
in  November,  1776.  The  declaration  of  rights, 
which  accompanied  it,  recited  the  declaration  of  in 
dependence,  and  declared  that  "the  people  of  this 
state  ought  to  have  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  of 
regulating  the  internal  government  and  police  there 
of,"  and  prohibited  public  officers  from  receiving 
any  present  from  any  foreign  prince  or  state,  or 
from  the  United  States.  The  control  of  general  or 
external  affairs  by  congress  was  assumed  as  the  ex 
isting  status.  It  further  provided  for  the  annual 
choice  of  delegates  to  congress,  prescribed  the  quali 
fications  of  such  delegates  and  provided  that  no 
delegate  should  serve  for  more  than  three  in  any; 


1 62  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

term  of  six  years,  nor  hold  any  office  of  profit  "in 
the  gift  of  congress." 

The  general  court  of  Massachusetts  adopted  a 
constitution  in  1778,  but  on  submission  to  the 
people  it  was  rejected;  and  it  was  not  until  1780 
that  the  first  constitution  of  the  state  went  into 
operation. 

The  first  constitution  of  New  Hampshire,  which 
was  completed  January  5,  1776,  before  the  declara 
tion  of  independence,  opened  with  this  recital: 
"We,  the  members  of  the  congress  of  New  Hamp 
shire,  chosen  and  appointed  by  the  free  suffrages 
of  the  people  of  the  said  colony,  and  author 
ized  and  empowered  by  them  to  meet  together, 
and  use  such  means  and  pursue  such  measures 
as  we  should  judge  best  for  the  public  good; 
and  in  particular  to  establish  some  form  of  gov 
ernment,  provided  that  measure  should  be  recom 
mended  by  the  continental  congress;  and  a  recom 
mendation  having  been  transmitted  to  us  from  the 
said  congress"  do,  etc.  It  was  further  resolved, 
"That,  if  the  present  unhappy  dispute  with  Great 
Britain  shall  continue  longer  than  this  present  year, 
and  the  continental  congress  give  no  instruction  or 
direction  to  the  contrary"  that  a  council  be  chosen 
by  the  people,  etc. 

The  constitution  of  New  Jersey,  adopted  in  1776 
by  a  convention  assembled  in  May  of  that  year,  con 
tains  this  recital  in  the  preamble:  "As  the  hon- 


INSTITUTION   OF   STATE   GOVERNMENTS  163 

orable  the  continental  congress,  the  supreme  council 
of  the  American  colonies  has  advised  such  of 
the  colonies  as  have  not  yet  gone  into  meas 
ures,  to  adopt  for  themselves,  respectively,  such 
government  as  shall  best  conduce  to  their  own 
happiness  and  safety,  and  the  well  being  of  Amer 
ica  in  general:  We,  the  representatives,"  etc. 

The  convention  which  framed  the  first  constitu 
tion  of  New  York,  assembled  at  White  Plains, 
July  10,  1776,  and  the  instrument  was  completed 
at  Kingston,  April  20,  1777.  The  preamble  recites 
the  resolution  of  congress  of  May  15,  advising 
the  institution  of  state  governments.  The  declara 
tion  of  independence  is  then  recited  at  length 
and  is  followed  by  this:  "In  virtue  of  which  sev 
eral  acts,  declarations,  and  proceedings  mentioned 
and  contained  in  the  aforecited  resolves  or  resolutions 
of  the  general  congress  of  the  United  American 
States  and  of  the  congresses  or  conventions  of  this 
state,  all  power  whatever  therein  hath  reverted  to 
the  people  thereof." 

The  first  constitutional  convention  of  the  state  of 
North  Carolina  assembled  at  Halifax  in  November, 
1776,  and  completed  its  work  in  the  following 
month.  The  second  paragraph  of  the  declaration 
of  rights  is  as  follows:  "That  the  people  of  this 
state  ought  to  have  the  sole  and  exclusive  right  of 
regulating  the  internal  government  and  police  there 
of."  The  constitution  contained  the  provision  "that 


164  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

no  officer  in  the  regular  army  or  navy,  in  the  serv 
ice  and  pay  of  the  United  States,"  should  have  a 
seat  in  the  assembly;  and  provided  for  the  annual 
election  of  delegates  to  the  continental  congress. 

The  first  constitution  of  Pennsylvania  was 
framed  by  a  convention  which  assembled  at  Phila 
delphia  on  the  fifteenth  of  July,  1776,  and  completed 
its  labors  in  September  of  the  same  year.  The  pre 
amble  declares:  "Whereas,  it  is  absolutely  neces 
sary  for  the  welfare  and  safety  of  the  inhabitants 
of  said  colonies,  that  they  be  henceforth  free  and 
independent  states,  and  that  just,  permanent,  and 
proper  forms  of  government  exist  in  every  part  of 
them,  derived  from  and  founded  on  the  authority 
of  the  people  only,  agreeable  to  the  directions  of  the 
honorable  American  congress."  The  third  article 
of  the  declaration  of  rights  was  as  follows:  "That 
the  people  of  this  state  have  the  sole,  exclusive  and 
inherent  right  of  governing  and  regulating  the  in 
ternal  police  of  the  same." 

In  South  Carolina  a  provincial  congress  adopted, 
in  March,  1776,  a  form  of  government.  It  provid 
ed  for  delegates-  to  the  continental  congress  and  de 
clared  "that  the  resolutions  of  the  continental  con 
gress,  now  of  force  in  this  colony,  shall  so  continue 
until  altered  or  revoked  by  them."  This  constitution 
and  the  one  adopted  by  the  general  assembly  in 
1778  were  declared  by  the  supreme  court  to  be  sim 
ple  acts  of  the  general  assembly  and  subject  to  re- 


INSTITUTION    OF   STATE   GOVERNMENTS  165 

peal  by  that  body.  The  constitution  of  1778  re 
ferred  to  the  former  as  temporary  only  and  re 
cited:  "Whereas,  the  united  colonies  of  America 
have  been  since  constituted  independent  states,  and 
the  political  connection  heretofore  subsisting  be 
tween  them  and  Great  Britain  entirely  dissolved 
by  the  declaration  of  the  honorable  continental  con 
gress;"  and  provided  for  the  annual  election  of  "dele 
gates  to  the  congress  of  the  United  States." 

It  appears,  I  think,  from  what  I  have  said: 
First,  that  the  state  governments  were  not  distinct 
and  separate  ventures,  antedating  the  union,  but 
were  incident  to  and  grew  out  of  the  union;  and, 
second,  that  the  sovereignty  assumed  in  these  first 
state  constitutions  was  of  local,  or  internal  affairs, 
while  the  larger  sovereignty,  that  had  to  do  with 
the  world,  was  either  expressly  or  impliedly  left  to 
the  union — as  represented  by  the  continental  con 
gress.  There  was  nothing  in  any  of  these  constitu 
tions — save  that  of  South  Carolina — that  looked  to 
or  provided  for  any  intercourse  between  the  state 
and  any  foreign  power. 

It  will  be  instructive  to  examine  with  some  de 
tail  these  first  state  constitutions,  for  in  them  we 
have  the  first  systematic  expressions  of  the  Ameri 
can  form  of  government.  Most  of  them  were  in 
troduced  by  bills  of  rights,  and  these,  upon  exam 
ination,  will  be  found  to  be  largely  re-statements  of 
the  natural  and  inherited  rights  that  had  been  so 


1 66  VIEWS    OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

often  and  so  fervently  defended  in  the  addresses  to 
the  crown.  Seeing  that  the  powers  of  government 
had  been  so  cruelly  and  selfishly  used  by  kings  and 
parliaments  and  royal  governors  we  do  not  wonder 
that  there  'should  have  been  a  popular  affection  for 
bills  of  rights  and  a  most  watchful  care  that  the 
powers  of  public  officers  should  be  strictly  defir-ed 
and  limited.  The  objection  to  the  national  consti 
tution  of  1787  that  it  did  not  contain  a  bill  of 
rights  was  well-nigh  fatal  to  its  adoption,  and  was 
only  waived  in  the  belief  that  it  would  be — as  it 
was — speedily  removed  by  amendments. 

The  bill  of  rights  of  Maryland,  adopted  Novem 
ber  n,  1776,  may  be  taken  as  a  good  general  ex 
ample.  It  declared  that  the  people  were  the  source 
of  all  government  and  that  the  object  of  govern 
ment  was  the  general  good;  that  public  officers 
were  "the  trustees  of  the  public" ;  that  the  legisla 
tive,  executive  and  judicial  functions  should  be  kept 
forever  separate;  that  justice  should  be  administered 
freely,  without  sale,  denial  or  delay;  that  trials 
should  be  by  a  jury  of  the  neighborhood;  that  free 
dom  of  speech  and  of  the  press  should  be  held  in 
violate;  the  right  of  the  people  to  assemble  peace 
ably  and  to  petition  for  a  redress  of  grievances  was 
affirmed;  cruel  and  unusual  punishments  were  for 
bidden;  the  accused  was  guaranteed  the  right  to  a 
speedy  trial,  to  confront  witnesses,  to  be  defended 
by  counsel;  excessive  bail  was  forbidden;  ex  post 


INSTITUTION   OF    STATE   GOVERNMENTS  1 67 

'facto  laws  were  prohibited;  the  right  of  search  limit 
ed;  the  right  to  bear  arms  and  the  freedom  of  wor 
ship  affirmed,  and  test  oaths  and  titles  of  nobility 
prohibited. 

It  was  a  noble  summary  of  human  rights,  an  en 
during  basis  for  free  government.  The  individual 
rights  asserted  were,  in  the  main,  the  rights  which 
Englishmen  had  achieved  and  the  colonists  had  in 
herited.  The  division  of  governmental  powers  was 
a  modification  of  the  forms  of  the  English  consti 
tution.  The  king  was  eliminated.  The  dread  and 
redoubtable  sovereign,  by  the  grace  of  God,  king, 
etc.,  was  no  longer  a  man,  but  the  law;  and  that 
law  the  expression  of  the  will  of  the  people. 

The  constitutions  of  Delaware,  Maryland,  Massa 
chusetts,  New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,  Connecti 
cut,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  North  Carolina,  Geor 
gia  and  Virginia  provided  for  the  organization  of 
a  legislature  to  consist  of  two  distinct  and  co-ordi 
nate  branches. 

In  Delaware,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  Connecticut,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  North 
Carolina  and  Virginia,  the  members  of  both  branches 
of  the  legislature  were  chosen  by  popular  vote. 

In  Georgia  the  legislative  body,  chosen  annually 
by  the  freemen,  on  the  first  day  of  their  meeting 
elected  an  executive  council  from  their  own  body. 
The  remainder  of  the  body  constituted  the  house 
of  assembly  and  had  full  legislative  power;  but  all 


1 68  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

laws  were  required  to  be  sent  to  the  executive  coun 
cil  for  their  perusal  and  advice. 

In  New  Hampshire  the  assembly,  or  house  of  rep 
resentatives,  chose  a  council  which,  when  chosen, 
was  charged  jointly  with  the  assembly  with  legisla 
tive  powers.  In  the  constitution  of  1784  a  senate 
and  house  of  representatives  were  provided  for, 
vested  with  supreme  legislative  power,  and  the  mem 
bers  of  both  houses  were  to  be  chosen  by  popular 
election. 

In  Pennsylvania,  by  the  constitution  of  1776,  the 
supreme  legislative  power  was  vested  in  a  single 
house  of  representatives  chosen  by  the  freemen  of 
the  commonwealth.  A  council  was  also  provided 
for  to  be  chosen  by  popular  vote;  but  it  was 
charged  with  executive  rather  than  legislative  duties. 

In  South  Carolina,  under  the  constitution  of  1776, 
a  general  assembly  was  elected  by  the  freeholders, 
and  this  assembly  chose  from  its  own  body  a  legis 
lative  council,  and  the  two  bodies  chose  a  president 
and  vice-president.  The  supreme  legislative  power 
was  vested  in  the  president,  the  legislative  council 
and  the  assembly. 

The  constitution  adopted  by  the  convention  of 
Vermont  in  1777  provided  for  a  single  legislative 
body  or  assembly,  but  all  bills  were  required  to  be 
laid  before  the  governor  and  council  for  perusal 
and  proposals  for  amendment;  and,  except  in  case  of 


INSTITUTION    OF    STATE   GOVERNMENTS  169 

sudden  necessity,  were  to  lie  over  until  the  next  as 
sembly  for  final  passage. 

In  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  under  their 
charters,  which  were  continued,  the  legislative 
powers  were  vested  in  a  council  and  delegates  which 
at  first  met  in  one  body,  but  had  afterwards 
come  to  sit  separately.  The  members  of  both 
branches  were  elected  by  popular  vote. 

It  thus  appears  that  in  eleven  of  the  states  the 
bicameral  form  had  been  adopted  for  the  supreme 
legislature. 

George  Mason,  writing  in  1778,  said  of  the  or 
ganization  of  the  state  governments:  "There  is  a 
remarkable  sameness  in  all  the  forms  of  government 
throughout  the  American  union,  except  in  the  states 
of  South  Carolina  and  Pennsylvania,  the  first  hav 
ing  three  branches  of  legislature,  and  the  last  only 
one ;  all  the  other  states  have  two :  This  difference 
having  given  general  disgust,  and  it  is  probable  an 
alteration  will  take  place  to  assimilate  these  to  the 
constitutions  of  the  other  states." 

The  idea  of  giving  greater  permanence  to  the  up 
per  branch  of  the  legislature  appears  in  many  of 
these  constitutions.  In  Delaware  one  of  the  three 
councilors  chosen  for  each  county  retired  every  year 
and  the  vacancy  was  filled  by  a  new  election. 

Under  the  first  constitution  of  Maryland  the  term 
of  office  of  the  senators  was  five  years,  while  that 


I7O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

of  the  members  of  the  assembly  was  one  year.  Two 
persons  were  chosen  by  popular  vote  from  each 
county  to  be  "electors  of  the  senate,"  and  these  elect 
ors  chose  the  senators.  The  electors  of  senators 
were  required  to  take  an  oath  "to  elect  without  favor, 
affection,  partiality,  or  prejudice,  such  persons  for 
senators  as  they,  in  their  judgment  and  conscience, 
believe  best  qualified  for  the  office." 

In  New  York  the  senators  first  chosen  were  di 
vided  by  lot  into  four  classes,  the  term  of  one  class 
expiring  each  year ;  thus,  after  the  first  election,  mak 
ing  the  term  of  office  four  years,  while  the  mem 
bers  of  the  assembly  were  chosen  for  one  year 
only. 

In  Virginia  the  senate  was  divided  into  four 
classes  of  six  members  each,  and  one  class  chosen 
annually. 

The  reservation,  suggested  by  the  English  con 
stitution,  of  the  power  of  originating  revenue  bills 
to  the  lower  and  more  popular  branch  of  the  legis 
lature  appears  in  several  of  these  early  constitu 
tions. 

In  Delaware  it  was  declared  "that  all  money  bills 
for  the  support  of  government  shall  originate  in  the 
house  of  assembly,  and  may  be  altered,  amended  or 
rejected  by  the  legislative  council.  All  other  bills 
and  ordinances  may  take  rise  in  the  house  of  assem 
bly  or  legislative  council,  and  may  be  altered,  amend 
ed  or  rejected  by  either." 


INSTITUTION   OF   STATE   GOVERNMENTS 

The  constitution  of  Maryland  contained  a  similar 
provision.  But  a  wise  provision,  which  ought  to 
have  been  embodied  in  the  national  constitution,  pre 
served  the  legislative  liberty  of  the  senate.  It  was 
expressed  thus:  "That  the  senate  may  be  at  full 
and  perfect  liberty  to  exercise  their  judgment  in  pass 
ing  laws — and  that  they  may  not  be  compelled  by 
the  house  of  delegates,  either  to  reject  a  money  bill, 
which  the  emergency  of  affairs  may  require,  or  to 
assent  to  some  other  act  of  legislation,  in  their  con 
science  and  judgment  injurious  to  the  public  wel 
fare — the  house  of  delegates  shall  not,  on  any  oc 
casion,  or  under  any  pretense,  annex  to,  or  blend 
with  a  money  bill,  any  matter,  clause  or  thing  not 
immediately  relating  to,  and  necessary  for  the  im 
posing,  assessing,  levying  or  applying  the  taxes  or 
supplies,  to  be  raised  for  the  support  of  government 
or  the  current  expenses  of  the  state." 

This  additional  provision  defining  money  bills  is 
interesting  in  view  of  the  questions  that  have  been 
raised  between  the  national  senate  and  house  of  rep 
resentatives  in  connection  with  the  provision  of  the 
national  constitution  upon  the  subject :  "And  to  pre 
vent  altercation  about  such  bills,  it  is  declared,  that 
no  bill  imposing  duties  or  customs  for  the  mere  reg 
ulation  of  commerce,  or  inflicting  fines  for  the  ref 
ormation  of  morals,  or  to  enforce  the  execution  of 
the  laws,  by  which  an  incidental  revenue  may  arise, 
shall  be  accounted  a  money  bill." 


172  VIEWS    OF    AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

In  the  Massachusetts  constitution  also  it  was  pro 
vided  that  all  "money  bills"  should  originate  in  the 
house  of  representatives,  the  power  of  amendment, 
however,  being  reserved  to  the  senate;  and  in  the 
constitution  of  New  Hampshire,  adopted  in  1784, 
the  same  provision  appears. 

In  the  constitution  of  New  Jersey,  of  1776,  the 
limitation  of  the  powers  of  the  council  was  expressed 
as  follows :  "That  the  council  shall  also  have  power 
to  prepare  bills  to  pass  into  laws,  and  have  other 
like  powers  as  the  assembly,  and  in  all  respects  be 
a  free  and  independent  branch  of  the  legislature  of 
this  colony,  save  only  that  they  shall  not  prepare  or 
alter  any  money  bill — which  shall  be  the  privilege 
of  the  assembly." 

The  constitution  of  South  Carolina  (1776)  pro 
vided  that  "all  money  bills  for  the  support  of  gov 
ernment  shall  originate  in  the  general  assembly  and 
shall  not  be  altered  or  amended  by  the  legislative 
council,  but  may  be  rejected  by  them." 

In  the  first  constitution  of  Virginia  (1776)  this 
provision  appears :  "All  laws  shall  originate  in  the 
house  of  delegates,  to  be  approved  or  rejected  by 
the  senate,  or  to  be  amended  with  consent  of  the 
house  of  delegates,  except  money  bills,  which  in  no 
instance  shall  be  altered  by  the  senate,  but  wholly 
approved  or  rejected." 

Some  other  general  provisions,  found  in  the  first 
state  constitutions,  relating  to  the  powers  of  the 


INSTITUTION    OF    STATE   GOVERNMENTS  173 

state  legislatures,  were  that  each  house  should  be 
the  judge  of  the  election  and  qualification  of  its 
members,  should  have  power  to  sit  upon  its  own  ad 
journments — in  some  cases  with  the  limitation  that 
neither  should  adjourn  without  the  consent  of  the 
other  except  for  two  or  three  days. 

The  assembly,  or  popular  branch,  was  invested 
with  the  power  of  presenting  articles  of  impeach 
ment  against  public  officers  to  be  tried  before  the 
council  or  senate. 

The  returns  of  the  votes  for  governor  were  to  be 
canvassed  by  the  general  assembly  and  the  result  de 
clared;  in  the  event  of  a  tie  the  choice  was  devolved 
upon  the  legislature.  The  provisions  touching  these 
matters  were  not,  of  course,  uniform  in  all  states. 
I  call  attention  to  these  matters  here  as,  in  some 
cases,  furnishing  the  suggestion,  and  in  some  cases 
almost  the  very  form  afterwards  adopted  in  the  na 
tional  constitution. 

THE   EXECUTIVE 

Let  us  now  notice  briefly  the  provision  made  for 
the  exercise  of  the  executive  powers  in  these  con 
stitutions. 

In  Delaware  provision  was  made  for  the  choice 
by  joint  ballot  of  both  houses,  "to  be  taken  in  the 
house  of  assembly,"  of  a  president  or  chief  magis 
trate,  whose  term  was  three  years.  He  was  author 
ized  to  draw  for  moneys  appropriated  by  the  legis- 


174  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

lature  and  required  to  account  for  the  same.  Dur 
ing  the  recess  of  the  legislature,  and  for  a  period 
not  exceeding  thirty  days,  he  was  allowed  to  lay 
embargoes  and  prohibit  the  exportation  of  any  com 
modity.  A  limited  pardoning  power  was  given  him, 
and  other  general  executive  powers  of  government. 

On  the  death,  inability  or  absence  from  the  state 
of  the  president  or  chief  magistrate  the  office  was 
devolved  upon  the  speaker  of  the  council  "as  vice- 
president";  and,  in  case  of  his  death,  inability,  or 
absence  from  the  state,  the  powers  of  "the  presi 
dency"  were  devolved  upon  the  speaker  of  the 
house  of  assembly. 

In  Georgia  the  chief  executive  officer  was  styled 
governor  and  was  chosen  by  the  house  of  represen 
tatives  on  the  first  day  of  their  meeting.  He  was 
authorized,  with  the  advice  of  the  executive  coun 
cil,  to  exercise  the  executive  powers  according  to 
the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  state;  to  call  the 
assembly  together  in  an  emergency  and  to  fill  va 
cancies  in  office  until  the  next  general  election.  He 
was  to  preside  in  the  executive  council  at  all  times 
except  "when  they  are  taking  into  consideration  and 
perusal  the  laws  and  orders  offered  to  them  by 
the  house  of  assembly."  He  was  elected  by  popular 
vote  to  hold  office  for  one  year,  and  was  not  eli 
gible  for  more  than  one  year  in  three.  In  case  of 
the  sickness  or  absence  of  the  governor  the  presi- 


INSTITUTION   OF   STATE   GOVERNMENTS  175 

dent  of  the  executive  council   was  to  exercise  the 
powers  of  the  office. 

Neither  here  nor  in  the  case  of  Delaware  does  it 
seem  that  any  power  was  given  to  the  governor 
either  to  approve  or  disapprove  of  acts  of  the  legis 
lature.  In  Georgia,  as  we  have  seen,  the  acts  of 
the  legislature  were  submitted  to  the  executive  coun 
cil  for  advice  and  amendment;  but  the  governor — 
usually  the  presiding  officer — was  excluded  from  the 
sittings  of  the  council  when  they  were  exercising 
this  legislative  power.- 

In  Maryland  the  chief  executive  was  also  desig 
nated  by  the  title  of  governor;  was  elected  annually 
by  the  "joint  ballot  of  both  houses  to  be  taken  in 
each  house  separately/'  In  case  of  a  tie  a  second 
ballot  was  to  be  taken,  confined  to  the  persons  who, 
on  the  first  ballot,  had  an  equal  number  of  votes; 
and,  if  a  tie  again  resulted,  the  election  was  to  be 
determined  by  lot.  The  governor  could  not  con 
tinue  in  office  longer  than  three  years,  and  was 
afterwards  ineligible  for  four  years.  On  the  death 
or  resignation  of  the  governor  the  "first  named  of 
the  council,  for  the  time  being,"  acted  as  gover 
nor.  The  governor  was  vested  with  general  execu 
tive  powers  under  the  law,  but  was  expressly  re 
strained  from  the  exercise,  under  any  pretense,  of 
any  power  or  prerogative  "by  virtue  of  any  law, 
statute,  or  custom  of  England  or  Great  Britain." 
He  was  authorized,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 


1^6  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

the  council,  to  appoint  the  chancellor,  judges,  jus 
tices,  attorney-general  and  other  civil  officers,  except 
such  as  had  been  otherwise  specially  provided  for, 
and  to  suspend  any  officer  not  appointed  during 
good  behavior.  It  was  his  duty  to  sign  all  bills 
passed  by  the  general  assembly  and  to  affix  the  great 
seal  of  state. 

In  Massachusetts  "a  supreme  executive  magistrate," 
to  be  styled  the  governor  of  the  commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts,    was    provided    for.     He    was    to    be 
chosen  annually  by  popular  vote ;  the  returns  were  to  be 
canvassed  and  declared  before  the  senate  and  house  of 
representatives ;  the  house  of  representatives,  by  ballot, 
was  to  select  two  ©f  the  four  persons  having  the  highest 
number  of  votes,  and  the  senate  was  then,  by  bal 
lot,  to  elect  one  of  these,   who  should  be  declared 
governor.     He  was  commander-in-chief  of  the  mili 
tary  forces  of  the  state,  appointed  all  judicial  officers 
and  other  officers  designated,  "by  and  with  the  ad 
vice  and  consent  of  the  council."     The  election  of 
a   lieutenant-governor   was   also   provided   for   who, 
in  case  of  the   death   or  absence  of  the   governor, 
performed  the  duties  of  the  office  during  such  va 
cancy.     All    bills    and    resolves    of    the    senate    or 
house  of  representatives,  before  having  force  as  laws, 
were  required  to  be  laid  before  the  governor  "for 
his  revisal."     If  he  approved  he  was  to  signify  his 
approval  by  signing  the  bill,   "but,   if  he  have  any 
objection  to  the  passing  of  such  bill  or  resolve,  he 


INSTITUTION   OF    STATE   GOVERNMENTS  177 

shall  return  the  same,  together  with  his  objections 
thereto,  in  writing,  to  the  senate  or  house  of  rep 
resentatives,  in  whichsoever  the  same  shall  have 
originated,  who  shall  enter  the  objections  sent  down 
by  the  governor,  at  large,  on  their  record,  and  pro 
ceed  to  reconsider  the  said  bill  or  resolve;  but  if, 
after  such  reconsideration,  two-thirds  of  the  said 
senate  or  house  of  representatives  shall,  notwith 
standing  the  said  objections,  agree  to  pass  the  same, 
it  shall,  together  with  the  objections,  be  sent  to  the 
other  branch  of  the  legislature,  where  it  shall  also 
be  reconsidered,  and  if  approved  by  two-thirds  of 
the  members  present,  shall  have  the  force  of  law; 
but  in  all  such  cases  the  vote  of  both  houses  shall 
be  determined  by  yeas  and  nays;  and  the  names  of 
the  persons  voting  for  or  against  the  said  bill  or 
resolve  shall  be  entered  on  the  public  records  of  the 
commonwealth.  And  in  order  to  prevent  unneces 
sary  delays,  if  any  bill  or  resolve  shall  not  be  re 
turned  by  the  governor  within  five  days  after  it 
shall  have  been  presented,  the  same  shall  have  the 
force  of  law." 

In  the  first  brief  and  temporary  frame  of  gov 
ernment  adopted  in  New  Hampshire,  1776,  no  pro 
vision  was  made  for  a  separate  executive  depart 
ment;  the  executive  duties  were  assumed  by  the 
house  of  representatives  and  council;  but  in  the  con 
stitution  of  1784  "a  supreme  executive  magistrate" 
was  provided  for  who  was  styled  the  president  of 


178  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  He  was  elected  an 
nually  by  a  popular  vote,  which  was  to  be  canvassed 
and  declared  by  the  senate  and  house  of  representa 
tives;  and,  if  there  was  no  election,  the  same 
method  of  choice  was  adopted  as  in  Massachusetts. 
The  president  was  the  presiding  officer  of  the  sen 
ate  and  had  "a  vote  equal  with  any  other  member/' 
and  a  casting  vote  in  case  of  a  tie.  This  constitu 
tion  was  closely  modeled  on  that  of  Massachusetts. 

The  constitution  of  New  Jersey,  1776,  vested  the 
government  in  a  governor,  legislative  council  and 
general  assembly.  The  governor  was  chosen  an 
nually  by  the  council  and  assembly  in  a  joint 
meeting,  and  he  became  president  of  the  council, 
where  he  had  a  casting  vote.  The  council  chose  a 
vice-president,  who  was  authorized  to  act  in  the  ab 
sence  of  the  governor. 

In  New  York  the  first  constitution  provided  that 
the  supreme  executive  power  and  authority  should 
be  vested  in  a  governor,  who  was  to  be  chosen  at 
a  popular  election  and  to  hoH  office  for  three  years. 
He  was  to  "inform  the  legislature  at  every  session 
of  the  condition  of  the  state,  so  far  as  may  respect 
his  department;  to  recommend  such  matters  to  their 
consideration  as  shall  appear  to  him  to  concern  its 
good  government,  welfare  and  prosperity;  to  corre 
spond  with  the  continental  congress  and  other  states; 
to  transact  all  necessary  business  with  the  officers 
of  government,  civil  and  military;  to  take  care  that 


INSTITUTION    OF    STATE   GOVERNMENTS  179 

the  laws  are  faithfully  executed,  to  the  best  of  his 
ability,  and  to  expedite,  all  such  measures  as  may 
be  resolved  upon  by  the  legislature."  The  governor, 
the  chancellor  and  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court, 
or  any  two  of  them,  were  constituted  a  council  to 
revise  bills  about  to  be  passed  by  the  legislature.  If 
the  council,  or  a  majority  of  them,  were  of  the 
opinion  that  the  bill  should  not  become  a  law  it*  was 
to  be  returned  to  the  house  in  which  it  originated 
with  the  objections.  If,  upon  a  reconsideration,  two- 
thirds  of  each  branch  still  agreed  to  the  law,  not 
withstanding  the  objections,  the  bill  became  a  law. 
It  was  provided,  however,  that  if  a  bill  should  not 
be  returned  within  ten  days  after  the  presentation 
to  the  council  it  should  be  a  law,  unless  the  legisla 
ture  "shall,  by  their  adjournment,  render  a  return 
of  the  said  bill  within  ten  days  impracticable,  in 
which  case  the  bill  shall  be  returned  on  the  first  day 
of  the  meeting  of  the  legislature,  after  the  expira 
tion  of  the  said  ten  days."  A  lieutenant-governor 
was  provided  for,  to  be  chosen  in  the  same  manner 
as  the  governor.  He  was,  by  virtue  of  his  office, 
president  of  the  senate,  and  upon  an  equal  division 
had  a  casting  vote.  In  case  of  the  death,  resigna 
tion  or  absence  of  the  governor  from  the  state  the 
lieutenant-governor  exercised  the  powers  of  the  of 
fice.  In  case  the  lieutenant-governor  should  die,  re 
sign,  or  be  absent  from  the  state,  the  president  of 


l8o  VIEWS    OF    AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

the  senate  in  like  manner  succeeded  to  the  office  of 
governor. 

In  North  Carolina  the  senate  and  house,  at  their 
first  meeting,  elected  a  governor  by  ballot  for  one 
year.  General  executive  powers  were  given  to  him; 
and,  in  case  of  his  death,  inability  or  absence,  the 
speaker  of  the  senate,  for  the  time  being,  exercised 
the  powers  of  governor;  and  in  the  case  of  his  death, 
absence  or  inability,  the  speaker  of  the  house  of  com 
mons  assumed  the  office.  No  veto  power  was  vested 
in  the  governor. 

In  Pennsylvania  the  supreme  executive  power  was 
vested  in  a  president  and  council.  The  executive 
council  was  chosen  by  popular  vote,  and  the  president 
and  vice-president  annually  by  the  joint  ballot  of  the 
general  assembly  and  council. 

In  South  Carolina  provision  was  made  for  the 
choice  by  the  general  assembly  and  council  of  a 
president  and  commander-in-chief  and  a  vice-president. 
It  was  provided  that  "bills  having  passed  the  gen 
eral  assembly  and  legislative  council  may  be  assent 
ed  to  or  rejected  by  the  president  and  commander- 
in-chief.  Having  received  his  assent,  they  shall  have 
all  the  force  and  validity  of  a  general  act  of  this 
colony";  and,  further,  "where  a  bill  has  been  re 
jected  it  may,  on  a  meeting  after  adjournment  of 
not  less  than  three  days  of  the  general  assembly 
and  legislative  council,  be  brought  in  again."  I 
think  the  provision  which  I  now  quote  from  the 


INSTITUTION    OF    STATE   GOVERNMENTS  l8l 

constitutions  of  South  Carolina  of  1776  and  1778 
is  the  only  one  in  any  of  the  state  constitutions 
which  so  much  as  suggests  that  a  state  might  come 
into  treaty  relations  with  other  states.  The  pro 
vision  is  as  follows:  "That  the  president  and  com- 
mander-in-chief  shall  have  no  power  to  make  war 
or  peace,  or  enter  into  any  final  treaty  without  the 
consent  of  the  general  assembly  and  legislative  coun 
cil."  This  peculiar  provision  does  not  appear  in  the 
constitution  of  1790. 

The  constitution  of  Virginia,  1776,  provided  for 
a  governor  or  chief  magistrate,  to  be  chosen  annu 
ally  by  joint  ballot  of  both  houses.  With  the  ad 
vice  of  the  council  of  state  he  was  authorized  to  ex 
ercise  the  executive  powers  of  government  according 
to  the  laws  of  the  commonwealth.  The  privy  coun 
cil,  also  chosen  by  the  legislature,  were  authorized 
to  choose  out  of  their  own  number  a  president  who, 
in  case  of  the  death,  inability  or  absence  of  the  gov 
ernor,  was  to  act  as  lieutenant-governor. 

These  state  constitutions  greatly  instructed  the 
members  of  the  constitutional  convention  of  1787  in 
their  work.  In  fact,  an  outline  model  of  a  free, 
representative  government — its  grand  subdivisions 
— the  division  of  powers  between  these  and  the  gen 
eral  limitations  upon  each  department, — was  offered 
to  their  hand  in  these  state  constitutions,  and  the 
suggestion  was  obvious  that  the  more  nearly  the 
general  government  followed  these  outlines  the  more 


1 82  VIEWS    OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

likely  it  was  to  meet  with  popular  favor.  I  do  not 
mean  to  be  understood  as  saying  that  these  state 
constitutions  themselves  were  in  any  strict  sense  cre 
ations.  They  were  largely  the  development  and  mod 
ification  of  principles  and  usages  of  the  English  con 
stitution,  which  had  before  been  enlarged,  defined 
and  modified  by  a  century  and  a  half  of  American 
colonial  experience.  But  the  work  of  applying  these 
principles,  of  organizing  a  government  without  a 
king,  or  a  house  of  lords — a  republic  deriving  all 
of  its  powers  from  the  people  and  exercising  de 
fined  powers,  through  officers  having  limited  terms, 
and  by  prescribed  methods,  was  a  task  so  large  and 
delicate  that  the  first  state  constitution  may  well 
excite  our  admiration  and  surprise.  My  chief  ob 
ject,  however,  in  giving  you  so  full  an  abstract 
of  their  provisions  is  that  you  may  see  their  likeness 
each  to  the  other  and  to  the  national  constitution. 

When  we  contrast  these  admirable  state  consti 
tutions  with  the  articles  of  confederation,  we  do  not 
wonder  that  the  states  became  strong  and  the  union 
weak. 

The  state  service  attracted  the  competent  and  the 
ambitious,  and  only  the  most  resolute  and  the  most 
obscure  remained  in  congress.  The  condition  of  the 
federation  was  so  strikingly  like  that  of  a  barrel 
from  which  the  hoops  had  been  withdrawn,  ready  to 
fall  to  pieces  at  a  touch,  that  one  of  the  favorite 
toasts  of  this  period  was  "A  hoop  to  the  barrel." 


INSTITUTION   OF   STATE   GOVERNMENTS  183 

Speaking  of  the  situation  of  congress  about  this 
time,  Mr.  McMaster,  in  his  History  of  the  People 
of  the  United  States,  says:  "The  stimulus  derived 
from  the  presence  of  a  hostile  army  was  withdrawn 
and  the  representation  and  attendance  fell  off  fast. 
Delaware  and  Georgia  ceased  to  be  represented. 
From  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  to  the  organiza 
tion  of  the  government  under  the  constitution  six 
years  elapsed,  and  during  those  six  years  congress, 
though  entitled  to  ninety-one  members,  was  rarely 
attended  by  twenty-five.  The  house  was  repeatedly 
forced  to  adjourn  day  after  day  for  want  of  a  quo 
rum.  On  more  than  one  occasion  these  adjourn 
ments  covered  a  period  of  thirteen  consecutive  days. 
*  *  *  No  occasion,  however  impressive  or  im 
portant,  could  call  out  a  large  attendance.  Seven 
states,  represented  by  twenty  delegates,  witnessed  the 
resignation  of  Washington.  Twenty-three  members, 
sitting  for  eleven  states,  voted  for  the  ratification  of 
the  treaty.  *  *  *  Neglected  by  its  own  members, 
insulted  and  threatened  by  its  mutinous  troops,  re 
viled  by  the  press  and  forced  to  wander  from  city 
to  city  in  search  of  an  abiding  place,  its  acts  pos 
sessed  no  national  importance  whatever." 

In  the  South  Carolina  convention  for  the  ratifi 
cation  of  the  constitution,  the  Hon.  Jacob  Reed  said 
that  he  "looked  on  the  boasted  efficiency  of  congress 
to  be  farcical,  and  instanced  two  cases  in  proof  of 
his  opinion.  One  was  that  when  the  treaty  should 


184  VIEWS   OF   'AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

have  been  ratified  a  sufficient  number  of  members 
could  not  be  collected  in  congress  for  that  purpose, 
so  that  it  was  necessary  to  despatch  a  frigate,  at  the 
expense  of  four  thousand  dollars,  with  particular  di 
rections  to  Mr.  Adams  to  use  his  endeavors  to  gain 
time.  His  application  proved  successful;  otherwise 
very  disagreeable  consequences  must  have  ensued. 
The  other  case  was,  a  party  of  Indians  came  to 
Princeton  for  the  purpose  of  entering  into  an  ami 
cable  treaty  with  congress;  before  it  could  be  con 
cluded,  a  member  went  to  Philadelphia  to  be  mar 
ried,  and  his  secession  had  nearly  involved  the  west 
ern  country  in  all  the  miseries  of  war." 


THE    STATUS    OF    ANNEXED    TERRITORY 

AND    OF    ITS    FREE    CIVILIZED 

INHABITANTS 

University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  December,  1900 
North  American  Review,  January,  1901 

A  legal  argument  upon  this  subject  is  quite  out 
side  of  my  purpose,  which  is  to  consider,  in  a  pop 
ular,  rather  than  a  professional  way,  some  of  the 
questions  that  arise,  some  of  the  answers  that  have 
been  proposed,  and  some  of  the  objections  to  these 
answers. 

We  have  done  something  out  of  line  with  Ameri 
can  history,  not  in  the  matter  of  territorial  expan 
sion,  but  in  the  character  of  it.  Heretofore,  the  re 
gions  we  have  taken  over  have  been  contiguous  to 
us,  save  in  the  case  of  Alaska — and,  indeed,  Alaska 
is  contiguous,  in  the  sense  of  being  near.  These 
annexed  regions  were  also,  at  the  time  of  annexa 
tion,  either  unpeopled  or  very  sparsely  peopled,  by  civ 
ilized  men,  and  were  further,  by  their  situation,  cli 
mate  and  soil,  adapted  to  the  use  of  an  increasing 
American  population.  We  have  now  acquired  in- 

185 


1 86  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

i 

sular  regions,  situated  in  the  tropics,  and  in  another 
hemisphere,  and  hence  unsuitable  for  American  set 
tlers,  even  if  they  were  not,  as  they  are,  already 
populated,  and  their  lands  already  largely  taken  up. 

We  have  taken  over  peoples  rather  than  lands,  and 
these  chiefly  of  other  race  stocks — for  there  are  "di 
versities  of  tongues/'  The  native  labor  is  cheap  and 
threatens  competition,  and  there  is  a  total  absence 
of  American  ideas  and  methods  of  life  and  govern 
ment  among  the  eight  or  more  millions  of  inhabit 
ants  in  the  Philippines.  We  have  said  that  the  Chi 
nese  will  not  "homologate";  and  the  Filipinos  will 
certainly  be  slow.  Out  of  the  too  late  contempla 
tion  of  these  very  real  and  serious  problems  has 
arisen  the  proposition  to  solve  them,  as  many  think, 
by  wresting  our  government  from  its  constitutional 
basis;  or  at  least,  as  all  must  agree,  by  the  introduc 
tion  of  wholly  new  views  of  the  status  of  the  peo 
ple  of  the  territories,  and  of  some  startlingly  new 
methods  of  dealing  with  them.  It  is  not  open  to 
question,  I  think,  that,  if  we  had  taken  over  only 
the  Sandwich  islands  and  Porto  Rico,  these  new 
views  of  the  status  of  the  people  of  our  territories, 
and  these  new  methods  of  dealing  with  them,  would 
never  have  been  suggested  or  used. 

The  question  of  the  constitutional  right  of  the 
United  States  to  acquire  territory,  as  these  new  re 
gions  have  been  acquired,  must,  I  suppose,  be  taken 
by  every  one  to  have  been  finally  adjudged  in  favor 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  187 

of  that  right.  The  supreme  court  is  not  likely  to 
review  the  decision  announced  by  Chief  Justice  Mar 
shall. 

It  is  important  to  note,  however,  that  the  great 
chief-justice  derives  the  power  to  acquire  territory, 
by  treaty  and  conquest,  from  the  constitution  itself. 
He  says : 

"The  constitution  confers  absolutely  on  the  govern 
ment  of  the  Union  the  powers  of  making  war  and  of 
making  treaties;  consequently  that  government  pos 
sesses  the  power  of  acquiring  territory  either  by  con 
quest  or  by  treaty." 

While  this  decision  stands,  there  is  no  room  for 
the  suggestion  that  the  power  of  the  United  States 
to  acquire  territory,  either  by  a  conquest  con 
firmed  by  treaty,  or  by  a  treaty  of  purchase  from 
a  nation  with  which  we  are  at  peace,  is  doubtful,  and 
as  little  for  the  suggestion  that  this  power  is  an 
extra-constitutional  power.  The  people,  then,  have 
delegated  to  the  president  and  congress  the  power 
to  acquire  territory  by  the  methods  we  have  used  in 
the  cases  of  Porto  Rico  and  the  Hawaiian  and  Phil 
ippine  islands.  But  some  have  suggested  that  this 
power  to  acquire  new  territory  is  limited  to  certain 
ends;  that  it  can  only  be  used  to  acquire  territory 
that  is  to  be,  or  is  capable  of  being,  erected  into 
states  of  the  Union.  If  this  view  were  allowed,  the 

attitude  of  the  courts  to  the  question  would  not  be 

:i 

much  changed;  for  they  could  not  inquire  as  to  the 


1 88  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

purposes  of  congress,  nor,  I  suppose,  overrule  the 
judgment  of  congress  as  to  the  adaptability  of  ter 
ritory  for  the  creation  of  states.  The  appeal  would 
be  to  congress  to  limit  the  use  of  the  power. 

The  islands  of  Hawaii,  of  Porto  Rico  and  of  the 
Philippine  archipelago  have  been  taken  over,  not  for 
a  temporary  purpose,  as  in  the  case  of  Cuba,  but  to 
have  and  to  hold  forever,  as  a  part  of  the  region 
over  which  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States  ex 
tends.  We  have  not  put  ourselves  under  any  pledge 
as  to  them,  at  least  not  of  a  written  sort.  Indeed, 
we  have  not,  it  is  said,  made  up  our  minds  as  to 
anything  affecting  the  Philippines,  save  this :  that 
they  are  a  part  of  our  national  domain  and  that  the 
inhabitants  must  yield  obedience  to  the  sovereignty 
of  the  United  States,  so  long  as  we  choose  to  hold 
them. 

Our  title  to  the  Philippines  has  been  impeached  by 
some  upon  the  ground  that  Spain  was  not  in  pos 
session  when  she  conveyed  them  to  us.  It  is  a  prin 
ciple  of  private  law  that  a  deed  of  property  adversely 
held  is  not  good.  If  I  have  been  ejected  from  a 
farm  to  which  I  claim  title  and  another  is  in  pos 
session  under  a  claim  of  title,  I  must  recover  the  pos 
session  before  I  can  make  a  good  conveyance.  Other 
wise,  I  sell  a  law  suit  and  not  a  farm,  and  that  the 
law  counts  to  be  immoral.  It  has  not  been  shown, 
however,  that  this  principle  has  been  incorporated  into 
international  law;  and,  if  that  could  be  shown,  there 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  189 

would  still  be  need  to  show  that  Spain  had  been  ef 
fectively  ousted. 

It  is  very  certain,  I  suppose,  that  if  Great  Britain 
had,  during  our  revolutionary  struggle,  concluded 
a  treaty  of  cession  of  the  colonies  to  France,  we 
would  have  treated  the  cession  as  a  nullity  and  con 
tinued  to  fight  for  liberty  against  the  French.  No 
promises  of  liberal  treatment  by  France  would  have 
appeased  us. 

But  what  has  that  to  do  with  the  Philippine  situa 
tion?  There  are  so  many  points  of  difference.  We 
were  Anglo-Saxons!  We  were  capable  of  self-gov 
ernment.  And,  after  all,  what  we  would  have  done 
under  the  conditions  supposed  has  no  bearing  upon 
the  law  of  the  case.  It  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  any 
international  tribunal  would  affirm  the  completeness 
of  our  legal  title  to  the  Philippines. 

The  questions  that  perplex  us  relate  to  the  status 
of  these  new  possessions,  and  to  the  rights  of  their 
civilized  inhabitants  who  have  elected  to  renounce 
their  allegiance  to  the  Spanish  crown,  and  either  by 
choice  or  operation  of  law  have  become  American — 
somethings.  What?  Subjects  or  citizens?  There 
is  no  other  status,  since  they  are  not  aliens  any 
longer,  unless  a  newspaper  heading  that  recently  at 
tracted  my  attention  offers  another.  It  ran  thus: 
"Porto  Ricans  not  citizens  of  the  United  States 
proper"  Are  they  citizens  of  the  United  States  im 
proper,  or  improper  citizens  of  the  United  States? 


I9O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

It  seems  clear  that  there  is  something  improper.  To 
call  them  "citizens  of  Porto  Rico"  is  to  leave  their 
relations  to  the  United  States  wholly  undefined. 

Now,  in  studying  the  questions  whether  the  new 
possessions  are  part  of  the  United  States,  and  their 
free  civilized  inhabitants  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  the  constitution  should,  naturally,  be  exam 
ined  first.  Whatever  is  said  there,  is  final — any 
treaty  or  act  of  congress  to  the  contrary  notwith 
standing.  The  fact  that  a  treaty  must  be  constitu 
tional,  as  well  as  an  act  of  congress,  seems  to  have 
been  overlooked  by  those  who  refer  to  the  treaty 
of  cession  as  giving  congress  the  right  to  govern 
the  people  of  Porto  Rico,  who  do  not  retain  their 
Spanish  allegiance,  according  to  its  pleasure.  Has 
the  queen  regent,  with  the  island,  decorated  congress 
with  one  of  the  jewels  from  the  Spanish  crown? 

In  Pollard  v.  Hogan,  3  Howard,  the  court  says: 

"It  can  not  be  admitted  that  the  king  of  Spain 
could  by  treaty,  or  otherwise,  impart  to  the  United 
States  any  of  his  royal  prerogatives;  and  much  less 
can  it  be  admitted  that  they  have  capacity  to  receive 
or  power  to  exercise  them." 

A  treaty  is  a  part  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land 
in  the  same  sense  that  an  act  of  congress  is,  not 
in  the  same  sense  that  the  constitution  is.  The  con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  can  not  be  abrogated 
or  impaired  by  a  treaty.  Acts  of  congress  and  trea 
ties  are  only  a  part  of  the  "supreme  law  of  the  land" 


STATUS   OP   ANNEXED   TERRITORY 

when  they  pursue  the  constitution.  The  supreme 
court  has  decided  that  a  treaty  may  be  abrogated  by 
a  later  statute,  on  the  ground  that  the  statute  is  the 
later  expression  of  the  sovereign's  will.  Whether  a 
statute  may  be  abrogated  by  a  later  treaty,  we  do 
not  know;  but  we  do  know  that  neither  a  statute  nor 
a  treaty  can  abrogate  the  constitution. 

If  the  constitution  leaves  the  question  open 
whether  the  inhabitants  of  Porto  Rico  shall  or  shall 
not  upon  annexation  become  citizens,  then  the  presi 
dent  and  the  senate  may  exercise  that  discretion  by 
a  treaty  stipulation  that  they  shall  or  shall  not  be 
admitted  as  citizens;  but  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
constitution  gives  no  such  discretion,  but  itself  con 
fers  citizenship,  any  treaty  stipulation  to  the  contrary 
is  void.  To  refer  to  the  treaty  in  this  connection  is 
to  beg  the  question. 

If  we  seek  to  justify  the  holding  of  slaves,  in  a 
territory  acquired  by  treaty,  or  the  holding  of  its 
civilized  inhabitants  in  a  condition  less  favored  than 
that  of  citizenship,  by  virtue  of  the  provisions  of 
a  treaty,  it  would  seem  to  be  necessary  to  show  that 
the  constitution,  in  the  one  case,  allows  slavery,  and, 
in  the  other,  a  relation  of  civilized  people  to  the 
government  that  is  not  citizenship. 

Now  the  constitution  declares  (i4th  amendment) 
that  "all  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United 
States  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citi 
zens  of  the  United  States."  This  disposes  of  the 


VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

question,  unless  it  can  be  maintained  that  Porto  Rico 
is  not  a  part  of  the  United  States. 

But  the  theory  that  any  part  of  the  constitution, 
of  itself,  embraces  the  territories  and  their  people, 
is  contested  by  many.  Congress  seems  to  have  as 
sumed  the  negative,  though  among  the  members 
there  was  not  entire  harmony  as  to  the  argument  by 
which  the  conclusion  was  reached.  It  is  contended, 
by  most  of  those  who  defend  the  Porto  Rican  bill, 
that  the  constitution  expends  itself  wholly  upon  that 
part  of  the  national  domain  that  has  been  organized 
into  states,  and  has  no  reference  to,  or  authority  in, 
the  territories,  save  as  it  has  constituted  a  govern 
ment  to  rule  over  them. 

No  one  contends  that  every  provision  of  the  con 
stitution  applies  to  the  territories.  Some  of  them 
explicitly  relate  to  the  states  only.  The  contention 
of  those  who  oppose  the  Porto  Rican  legislation  is 
that  all  of  those  general  provisions  of  the  constitu 
tion  which  impose  limitations  upon  the  powers  of  the 
legislative,  executive  and  judicial  departments  must 
apply  to  all  regions  and  people  where  or  upon  whom 
those  powers  are  exercised.  And,  on  the  other  hand, 
those  who  deny  most  broadly  that  the  constitution 
applies  to  the  territories  seem  practically  to  allow 
that  much  of  it  does.  The  powers  of  appointment 
and  pardon  in  the  territories,  the  confirmation  of  ter 
ritorial  officers,  the  methods  of  passing  laws  to  gov 
ern  the  territories,  the  keeping  and  disbursement  of 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  193 

federal  taxes  derived  from  the  territories,  the  veto 
power,  and  many  other  things,  are  pursued  as  if  the 
constitution  applied  to  the  cases. 

But,  in  theory,  it  is  claimed  by  these  that  no  part 
of  the  constitution  applies  except  the  thirteenth  amend 
ment,  which  prohibits  slavery,  and  that  only  because 
the  prohibition  expressly  includes  "any  place  subject 
to  their  jurisdiction."  This  amendment  was  proposed 
by  congress  on  February  i,  1865 — the  day  on  which 
Sherman's  army  left  Savannah  on  its  northern 
march ;  and  the  words  "any  place  subject  to  their  juris 
diction"  were  probably  added  because  of  the  uncer 
tainty  of  the  legal  status  of  the  states  in  rebellion, 
and  not  because  of  any  doubt  as  to  whether  Nebras 
ka,  then  a  territory,  was  a  part  of  the  United  States. 

The  view  that  some  other  general  limitations  of 
the  constitution  upon  the  powers  of  congress  must 
relate  to  all  regions  and  all  persons  was,  however, 
adopted  by  some  members  of  the  Senate  committee 
in  the  report  upon  the  Porto  Rican  bill,  where  it  is 
said: 

"Yet,  as  to  all  prohibitions  of  the  constitution  laid 
upon  congress  while  legislating,  they  operate  for  the 
benefit  of  all  for  whom  congress  may  legislate,  no 
matter  where  they  may  be  situated,  and  without  re 
gard  to  whether  or  not  the  provisions  of  the  consti 
tution  have  been  extended  to  them;  but  this  is  so  be 
cause  the  congress,  in  all  that  it  does,  is  subject  to 
and  governed  by  those  restraints  and  prohibitions. 


194  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

As,  for  instance,  congress  shall  make  no  law  respect 
ing  an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the 
free  exercise  thereof;  no  title  of  nobility  shall  be 
granted;  no  bill  of  attainder  or  ex  post  facto  law 
shall  be  passed;  neither  shall  the  validity  of  contracts 
be  impaired,  nor  shall  property  be  taken  without  due 
process  of  law;  nor  shall  the  freedom  of  speech  or  of 
the  press  be  abridged;  nor  shall  slavery  exist  in  any 
place  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States. 
These  limitations  are  placed  upon  the  exercise  of  the 
legislative  power  withouf  regard  to  the  place  or  the 
people  for  whom  the  legislation  in  a  given  case  may 
be  intended." 

That  is  to  say,  every  general  constitutional  limi 
tation  of  the  powers  of  congress  applies  to  the  ter 
ritories.  The  brief  schedule  of  these  limitations 
given  by  the  committee  is  all  put  in  the  negative 
form,  "congress  shall  not";  but  surely  it  was  not 
meant  that  there  may  not  be  quite  as  effective  a 
limitation  by  the  use  of  the  affirmative  form.  If 
a  power  is  given  to  be  used  in  one  way  only, 
all  other  uses  of  it  are  negatived  by  necessary  im 
plication.  When  it  is  said,  "All  duties,  imposts,  and 
excises  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  United 
States,"  is  not  that  the  equivalent  of  "No  duty  or 
excise  that  is  not  uniform  shall  be  levied  in  the 
United  States?"  And  is  not  the  first  form  quite  as 
effective  a  limitation  of  the  legislative  power  over 
the  subject  of  indirect  taxation  as  that  contained  in 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  195 

the  fourth  clause  of  the  section  is  upon  the  power 
to  lay  direct  taxes? 

In  the  latter  the  negative  form  is  used,  thus: 

"No  capitation  or  other  direct  tax  shall  be  laid, 
unless  in  proportion  to  the  census  or  enumeration 
hereinbefore  directed  to  be  taken." 

This  discrimination  between  express  and  implied 
limitations,  benevolently  attempted  to  save  for  the 
people  of  the  territories  the  bill  of  rights  provision 
of  the  constitution,  will  not,  I  think,  endure  dis 
cussion. 

There  are  only  three  views  that  may  be  offered, 
with  some  show  of  consistency  in  themselves: 

First,  that  congress,  the  executive  and  the  judi 
ciary  are  all  created  by  the  constitution  as  govern 
ing  agencies  of  the  nation  called  the  United  States; 
that  their  powers  are  defined  by  the  constitution  and 
run  throughout  the  nation;  that  all  the  limitations 
of  their  powers  attach  to  every  region  and  to  all 
civilized  people  under  the  sovereignty  of  the  United 
States,  unless  their  inapplicability  appears  from  the 
constitution  itself;  that  every  guaranty  of  liberty,  in 
cluding  that  most  essential  one,  uniform  taxation,  is 
to  be  allowed  to  every  free  civilized  man  and  woman 
who  owes  allegiance  to  the  United  States;  that  the 
use  of  the  terms  "throughout  the  United  States' ' 
does  not  limit  the  scope  of  any  constitutional  pro 
vision  to  the  states  that  would  otherwise  be  appli 
cable  to  the  territories  as  well;  but  that  these  terms 


196  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

include  the  widest  sweep  of  the  nation's  sovereignty, 
and  so  the  widest  limit  of  congressional  action. 

Second,  that  the  terms,  "The  United  States/'  de 
fine  an  inner  circle  of  the  national  sovereignty  com 
posed  of  the  states  alone;  that,  whenever  those  terms 
are  used  in  the  constitution,  they  must  be  taken  to 
have  reference  only  to  the  region  and  to  the  people 
within  this  inner  circle;  but  that,  when  these  terms 
of  limitation  are  omitted,  the  constitutional  pro 
visions  must,  unless  otherwise  limited,  be  taken  to 
include  all  lands  and  people  in  the  outer  circle  of 
the  national  sovereignty. 

Third,  that  the  constitution  has  relation  only  to  the 
states  and  their  people;  that  all  constitutional  limi 
tations  of  the  powers  of  congress  and  the  executive 
are  to  be  taken  to  apply  only  to  the  states  and  their 
citizens;  that  the  power  to  acquire  territory  is  nei 
ther  derived  from  the  constitution,  nor  limited  by  it, 
but  is  an  inherent  power  of  national  life;  that  the 
government  we'  exercise  in  the  territories  is  not  a 
constitutional  government,  but  an  absolute  govern 
ment,  and  that  all  or  any  of  the  things  prohibited  by 
the  constitution  as  to  the  states,  in  the  interest  of 
liberty,  justice  and  equality,  may  be  done  in  the  ter 
ritories;  that,  as  to  the  territories,  we  are  under  no 
restraints  save  such  as  our  own  interests  or  our  benev 
olence  may  impose. 

I  say  "benevolence";  but  must  not  that  quality  be 
submerged,  before  this  view  of  the  constitution  is  pro- 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  1 97 

mulgated?  It  seems  to  have  had  its  origin  in  a  sup 
posed  commercial  necessity,  and  we  may  fairly  con 
clude  that  other  recurring  necessities  will  guide  its 
exercise.  Is  it  too  much  to  say  that  this  view  of 
the  constitution  is  shocking? 

Within  the  states,  it  is  agreed  that  the  powers 
of  the  several  departments  of  the  national  govern 
ment  are  severely  restrained.  We  read  that  congress 
shall  have  power,  and  again  that  congress  shall  not 
have  power.  But  neither  these  grants  nor  these  in 
hibitions  have,  it  is  said,  any  relation  to  the  terri 
tories.  Against  the  laws  enacted  by  the  congress,  or 
the  acts  done  by  the  executive,  there  is  no  appeal,  on 
behalf  of  the  people  of  the  territories,  to  any  writ 
ten  constitution,  or  bill  of  rights,  or  charter  of  lib 
erty.  We  offer  them  only  this  highly  consolatory 
thought:  a  nation  of  free  Americans  can  be  trusted 
to  deal  benevolently  with  you. 

How  obstinately  wrong  we  were  in  our  old  answer 
to  the  Southern  slave-holder!  It  is  not  a  question  of 
kind  or  unkind  treatment,  but  of  human  rights;  not 
of  the  good  or  bad  use  of  power,  but  of  the  power, 
we  said.  And  so  our  fathers  said,  in  answer  to 
the  claim  of  absolute  power  made  on  behalf  of  the 
British  parliament.  As  to  the  states,  the  legislative 
power  of  congress  is  "all  legislative  powers  herein 
granted."  (Art.  I,  Sec.  i.)  As  to  the  territories, 
it  is  said  to  be  all  legislative  power — all  that  any  par 
liament  ever  had  or  ever  claimed  to  have,  and  as 


198  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

much  more  as  we  may  claim — for  there  can  be  no  ex 
cess  of  pretension  where  power  is  absolute.  No  law 
relating  to  the  territories,  passed  by  congress,  can, 
it  is  said,  be  declared  by  the  supreme  court  to  be 
inoperative,  though  every  section  of  it  should  con 
travene  a  provision  of  the  constitution. 

An  outline  of  a  possible  law  may  aid  us  to  see 
more  clearly  what  is  involved: 

Sec.  i.  Suspends  permanently  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  in  Porto  Rico. 

Sec.  2.  Declares  an  attainder  against  all  Porto 
Ricans  who  have  displayed  the  Spanish  flag  since  the 
treaty  of  peace. 

Sec.  3.  Grants  to  the  native  mayors  of  Ponce  and 
San  Juan  the  titles  of  Lord  Dukes  of  Porto  Rico, 
with  appropriate  crests. 

Sec.  4.  Any  Porto  Rican  who  shall  speak  disre 
spectfully  of  the  congress  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of 
treason.  One  witness  shall  be  sufficient  to  prove  the 
offense,  and  on  conviction  the  offender  shall  have 
his  tongue  cut  out;  and  the  conviction  shall  work 
corruption  of  blood. 

Sec.  5.  The  Presbyterian  church  shall  be  the  Es 
tablished  church  of  the  island,  and  no  one  shall  be 
permitted  to  worship  God  after  any  other  form. 

Sec.  6.  All  proposed  publications  shall  be  submit 
ted  to  a  censor  and  shall  be  printed  only  after  he 
has  approved  the  same.  Public  meetings  for  the  dis- 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  199 

cussion  of  public  affairs  are  prohibited  and  no  peti 
tions  shall  be  presented  to  the  government. 

Sec.  7.  No  inhabitant  of  Porto  Rico  shall  keep 
or  bear  arms. 

Sec.  8.  The  soldiers  of  the  island  garrison  shall 
be  quartered  in  the  houses  of  the  people. 

Sec.  9.  The  commanding  officer  of  the  United 
States  forces  in  the  island  shall  have  the  right,  with 
out  any  warrant,  to  search  the  person,  house,  papers 
and  effects  of  any  one  suspected  by  him. 

Sec.  10.  Any  person  in  Porto  Rico,  in  civil  life, 
may  be  put  upon  trial  for  capital  or  other  infamous 
crimes  upon  the  information  of  the  public  prosecutor, 
without  the  presentment  or  indictment  of  a  grand  jury; 
may  be  twice  put  in  jeopardy  for  the  same  offense; 
may  be  compelled  to  be  a  witness  against  himself, 
and  may  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty  or  property  with 
out  due  process  of  law,  and  his  property  may  be 
taken  for  public  uses  without  compensation. 

Sec.  ii.  Criminal  trials  may,  in  the  discretion  of 
the  presiding  judge,  be  held  in  secret,  without  a 
jury,  in  a  district  prescribed  by  law  after  the  com 
mission  of  the  offense,  and  the  accused  shall,  or  not, 
be  advised  before  arraignment  of  the  nature  or  cause 
of  the  accusation,  and  shall,  or  not,  be  confronted 
with  the  witnesses  against  him,  and  have  compul 
sory  process  to  secure  his  own  witnesses,  as  the  pre 
siding  judge  may  in  his  discretion  order. 


2OO  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

Sec.  12.  There  shall  be  no  right  in  any  suit  at 
common  law  to  demand  a  jury. 

Sec.  13.  A  direct  tax  is  imposed  upon  Porto  Rico 
for  federal  uses  without  regard  to  its  relative  pop 
ulation;  the  tariff  rates  at  San  Juan  are  fixed  at  50 
per  cent,  and  those  at  Ponce  at  15  per  cent,  of 
those  levied  at  New  York. 

New  Mexico,  or  Arizona,  or  Oklahoma  might  be 
substituted  for  Porto  Rico  in  the  bill;  for,  I  think, 
those  who  affirm  that  the  constitution  has  no  relation 
to  Porto  Rico  do  so  upon  grounds  that  equally  apply 
to  all  other  territories. 

Now,  no  one  supposes  that  congress  will  ever  as 
semble  in  a  law  such  shocking  provisions.  But,  for 
themselves,  our  fathers  were  not  content  with  an  as 
surance  of  these  great  rights  that  rested  wholly  upon 
the  sense  of  justice  and  benevolence  of  the  congress. 
The  man  whose  protection  from  wrong  rests  wholly 
upon  the  benevolence  of  another  man  or  of  a  con 
gress,  is  a  slave — a  man  without  rights.  Our  fathers 
took  security  of  the  governing  departments  they  or 
ganized;  and  that,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the 
choice  of  all  public  officers  rested  with  the  people. 
When  a  man  strictly  limits  the  powers  of  an  agent  of 
his  own  choice,  and  exacts  a  bond  from  him,  to  se 
cure  his  faithfulness,  he  does  not  occupy  strong 
ground  when  he  insists  that  another  person,  who  had 
no  part  in  the  selection,  shall  give  the  agent  full 
powers  without  a  bond. 


STATUS    OF    ANNEXED    TERRITORY  2OI 

If  there  is  anything  that  is  characteristic  in 
American  constitutions,  state  and  national,  it  is  the 
plan  of  limiting  the  powers  of  all  public  officers 
and  agencies.  "You  shall  do  this;  you  may  do  this; 
you  shall  not  do  this" — is  the  form  that  the  schedule 
of  powers  always  takes.  This  grew  out  of  our  ex 
perience  as  English  colonies.  A  government  of  un 
limited  legislative  or  executive  powers  is  an  un-Amer 
ican  government.  And,  for  one,  I  do  not  like  to 
believe  that  the  framers  of  the  national  constitution 
and  of  our  first  state  constitutions  were  careful  only 
for  their  own  liberties. 

This  is  the  more  improbable  when  we  remember 
that  the  territory  then  most  likely  to  be  acquired 
would  naturally  be  peopled  by  their  sons.  They 
cherished  very  broad  views  as  to  the  rights  of  men. 
Their  philosophy  of  liberty  derived  it  from  God.  Lib 
erty  was  a  divine  gift  to  be  claimed  for  ourselves 
only  upon  the  condition  of  allowing  it  to  "all  men." 
They  would  write  the  law  of  liberty  truly,  and  suf 
fer  for  a  time  the  just  reproach  of  a  departure  from 
its  precepts  that  could  not  be  presently  amended. 

It  is  a  brave  thing  to  proclaim  a  law  that  con 
demns  your  own  practices.  You  assume  the  fault  and 
strive  to  attain.  The  fathers  left  to  a  baser  genera 
tion  the  attempt  to  limit  God's  law  of  liberty  to 
white  men.  It  is  not  a  right  use  of  the  fault  of 
slavery  to  say  that,  because  of  it,  our  fathers  did 
not  mean  "all  men."  It  was  one  thing  to  tolerate 


2O2  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

an  existing  condition  that  the  law  of  liberty  con 
demned,  in  order  to  accomplish  the  union  of  the 
states,  and  it  is  quite  another  thing  to  create  a  con 
dition  contrary  to  liberty  for  a  commercial  profit. 

In  a  recent  discussion  of  these  questions,  sent  me 
by  the  author,  I  find  these  consolatory  reflections: 
"And  yet  the  inalienable  rights  of  the  Filipinos,  even 
if  not  guaranteed  by  the  constitution,  are  amply  se 
cured  by  the  fundamental,  unwritten  laws  of  our  civ 
ilization/'  Does  this  mean  that  the  specific  guaran 
tees  of  individual  liberty  found  in  our  constitution 
have  become  a  part  of  "our  civilization,"  and  that 
they  apply  in  Porto  Rico  and  the  Philippines  in  such 
a  sense  that,  if  there  is  any  denial  of  them  by  con 
gress  or  the  executive,  the  courts  can  enforce  them 
and  nullify  the  law  that  infringes  them?  If  that  is 
meant,  then  as  to  all  such  rights  this  discussion  is 
tweedledum  and  tweedledee — the  constitution  does 
not  apply,  but  all  these  provisions  of  it  are  in  full 
force,  notwithstanding. 

Perhaps,  however,  it  should  be  asked  further, 
whether  the  rule  of  the  uniformity  of  taxation  is  a 
part  of  the  "law  of  our  civilization" ;  for,  without 
it,  all  property  rights  are  unprotected.  The  man 
whose  property  may  be  taxed  arbitrarily,  without  re 
gard  to  uniformity  within  the  tax  district  and  with 
out  any  limitation  as  to  the  purposes  for  which  taxes 
may  be  levied,  does  not  own  anything;  he  is  a  ten 
ant  at  will. 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  203 

But  if  these  supposed  "laws  of  our  civilization"  are 
not  enforcible  by  the  courts,  and  rest  wholly  for  their 
sanction  upon  the  consciences  of  presidents  and  con 
gresses,  then  there  is  a  very  wide  difference.  The 
one  is  ownership;  the  other  is  charity.  The  one  is 
freedom;  the  other  slavery — however  just  and  kind 
the  master  may  be. 

The  instructions  of  the  president  to  the  Taft  Phil 
ippine  commission  seem  to  allow  that  any  civil  gov 
ernment  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States, 
that  does  not  offer  to  the  people  affected  by  it  the 
guarantees  of  liberty  contained  in  the  bill  of  rights 
sections  of  the  constitution,  is  abhorrent.  Speaking 
of  these,  he  said : 

"Until  congress  shall  take  action,  I  directed  that, 
upon  every  division  and  branch  of  the  government 
of  the  Philippines  must  be  imposed  these  inviolable 
rules : 

"  'That  no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty 
or  property  without  due  process  of  law;  that  private 
property  shall  not  be  taken  for  public  use  without 
just  compensation;  that  in  all  criminal  prosecutions 
the  accused  shall  enjoy  the  right  to  a  speedy  and 
public  trial,  to  be  informed  of  the  nature  and  cause 
of  the  accusation,  to  be  confronted  with  the  wit 
nesses  against  him,  to  have  compulsory  process  for 
obtaining  witnesses  in  his  favor,  and  to  have  the 
assistance  of  counsel  for  his  defense;  that  excessive 
bail  shall  not  be  required,  nor  excessive  fines  im- 


2O4  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

posed,  nor  cruel  and  unusual  punishment  inflicted; 
that  no  person  shall  be  put  twice  in  jeopardy  for  the 
same  offense,  or  be  compelled  in  any  criminal  case 
to  be  a  witness  against  himself;  that  the  right  to 
be  secure  against  unreasonable  searches  and  seiz 
ures  shall  not  be  violated;  that  neither  slavery  nor 
involuntary  servitude  shall  exist  except  as  a  punish 
ment  for  crime;  that  no  bill  of  attainder,  or  ex  post 
facto  law  shall  be  passed;  that  no  law  shall  be 
passed  abridging  the  freedom  of  speech  or  of  the 
press,  or  of  the  rights  of  the  people  to  peaceably 
assemble  and  petition  the  government  for  a  redress 
of  grievances;  that  no  law  shall  be  made  respect 
ing  the  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the 
free  exercise  thereof,  and  that  the  free  exercise  and 
enjoyment  of  religious  profession  and  worship  with 
out  discrimination  or  preference  shall  forever  be  al 
lowed/  " 

The  benevolent  disposition  of  the  president  is  well 
illustrated  in  these  instructions.  He  conferred  freely 
— "until  congress  shall  take  action" — upon  the  Fili 
pinos,  who  accepted  the  sovereignty  of  the  United 
States  and  submitted  themselves  to  the  government 
established  by  the  commission,  privileges  that  our 
fathers  secured  only  after  eight  years  of  desperate 
war.  There  is  this,  however,  to  be  noted,  that  our 
fathers  were  not  content  to  hold  these  priceless  gifts 
under  a  revocable  license.  They  accounted  that  to 
hold  these  things  upon  the  tenure  of  another  man's 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  2O5 

benevolence  was  not  to  hold  them  at  all.  Their  bat 
tle  was  for  rights,  not  privileges — for  a  constitution, 
not  a  letter  of  instructions. 

The  president's  instructions  apparently  proceed 
upon  the  theory  that  the  Filipinos,  after  civil  gov 
ernment  has  superseded  the  military  control,  are  not 
endowed  under  our  constitution,  or  otherwise,  with 
any  of  the  rights  scheduled  by  him;  that,  if  he  does 
nothing,  is  silent,  some  or  all  of  the  things  prohib 
ited  in  his  schedule  may  be  lawfully  done  upon,  and 
all  the  things  allowed  may  be  denied  to,  a  people 
who  owe  allegiance  to  that  free  constitutional  gov 
ernment  we  call  the  United  States  of  America. 

It  is  clear  that  those  Porto  Ricans  who  have  not, 
under  the  treaty,  declared  a  purpose  to  remain  Span 
ish  subjects,  have  become  American  citizens  or 'Ameri 
can  subjects.  Have  you  ever  read  one  of  our  com 
mercial  treaties  with  Great  Britain  or  Germany,  or 
any  other  of  the  kingdoms  of  the  world?  These 
treaties  provide  for  trade  intercourse,  and  define  and 
guarantee  the  rights  of  the  people  of  the  respective 
nations  when  domiciled  in  the  territory  of  the  other. 
The  descriptive  terms  run  like  this :  "the  subjects  of 
Her  Britannic  Majesty"  on  the  one  part,  and  "the 
citizens  of  the  United  States"  on  the  other.  Now, 
if  the  commercial  privileges  guaranteed  by  these  trea 
ties  do  not,  in  their  present  form,  include  the  Porto 
Ricans  who  strewed  flowers  before  our  troops  when 
they  entered  the  island,  we  ought  at  once  to  propose 


2O6  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

to  our  "Great  and  Good  Friends/'  the  kings  and 
queens  of  the  Earth,  a  modification  of  our  conventions 
in  their  behalf. 

Who  will  claim  the  distinction  of  proposing  that 
the  words  "and  subjects"  be  introduced  after  the  word 
"citizens"?  There  will  be  no  objection  on  the  part 
of  the  king,  you  may  be  sure;  the  modification  will 
be  allowed  smilingly. 

We  have  never  before  found  it  necessary  to  treat 
the  free  civilized  inhabitants  of  the  territories  other 
wise  than  as  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  true,  as  Mr.  Justice  Miller  said,  that  the  ex 
clusive  sovereignty  over  the  territories  is  in  the  na 
tional  government;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the 
nation  possesses  the  power  to  govern  the  territories 
independently  of  the  constitution.  The  constitution 
gives  to  congress  the  right  to  exercise  "exclusive  leg 
islation"  in  the  District  of  Columbia;  but  "exclu 
sive"  is  not  a  synonym  of  "absolute."  When  the  con 
stitution  says  that  "treason  against  the  United  States 
shall  consist  only  in  levying  war  against  them,  or 
in  adhering  to  their  enemies,  giving  them  aid  and 
comfort,"  there  is  a  limitation  of  the  legislative 
power;  and  it  necessarily  extends  to  every  venue 
where  the  crime  of  treason  against  the  United 
States  may  be  laid,  and  to  every  person  upon  whom 
its  penalties  may  be  imposed. 

This  constitutional  provision  defining  the  crime  of 
treason  and  prescribing  the  necessary  proofs  is  a  bill 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  20? 

of  rights  provision.  In  England,  under  Edward  II, 
"there  was,"  it  was  said,  "no  man  who  knew  how 
to  behave  himself,  to  do,  speak  or  say,  for  doubt 
of  the  pains  of  such  treasons."  The  famous  statute 
of  Edward  III,  defining  treasons,  James  Wilson  de 
clares,  "may  well  be  styled  the  legal  Gibraltar  of 
England." 

Mr.  Madison,  speaking  of  this  section  of  the  con 
stitution,  says  in  the  Federalist: 

"But  as  new  fangled  and  artificial  treasons  have 
been  the  great  engines  by  which  violent  factions,  the 
natural  offspring  of  free  government,  have  usually 
wreaked  their  malignity  on  each  other,  the  conven 
tion  have  with  great  judgment  opposed  a  barrier  to 
this  peculiar  danger,  by  inserting  a  constitutional  defi 
nition  of  the  crime,"  etc. 

Mr.  Madison  believed  that  there  was  a  real  dan 
ger  that  statutes  of  treason  might  be  oppressively 
used  by  congress.  What  have  we  been  doing,  or 
what  have  we  a  purpose  to  do,  that  we  find  it  neces 
sary  to  limit  the  safeguards  of  liberty  found  in  our 
constitution,  to  the  people  of  the  states?  Is  it  that 
we  now  propose  to  acquire  territory  for  coloniza 
tion,  and  not,  as  heretofore,  for  full  incorporation? 
Is  it  that  we  propose  to  have  crown  colonies,  and 
must  have  crown  law?  Is  it  that  we  mean  to  be  a 
world  power,  and  must  be  free  from  the  restraints 
of  a  bill  of  rights?  We  shall  owe  deliverance  a 
second  time  to  these  principles  of  human  liberty,  if 


2O8  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

they  are  now  the  means  of  delivering  us  from  un- 
American  projects. 

The  particular  provision  of  the  constitution  upon 
which  congress  seems  to  have  balked,  in  the  Porto 
Rican  legislation,  was  a  revenue  clause,  viz.,  the  first 
paragraph  of  section  8  of  Article  I,  which  reads: 

"The  congress  shall  have  power  to  lay  and  collect 
taxes,  duties,  imposts  and  excises,  to  pay  the  debts, 
and  provide  for  the  common  defense  and  general  wel 
fare  of  the  United  States;  but  all  duties,  imposts  and 
excises  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the  United 
States." 

There  was  only  one  door  of  escape  from  allowing 
the  application  of  this  clause  to  Porto  Rico.  It  was 
to  deny  that  the  territories  are  part  of  the  United 
States. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  descriptive  term,  "The 
United  States,"  is  twice  used  in  the  one  sentence — 
once  in  the  clause  defining  the  purposes  for  which 
only  duties  and  imposts  may  be  levied,  and  once  in 
the  clause  requiring  uniformity  in  the  use  of  the 
power.  Is  there  any  canon  of  construction  that  au 
thorizes  us  to  give  to  the  words,  "The  United 
States,"  one  meaning  in  the  first  use  of  them  and  an 
other  in  the  second?  If  in  the  second  use  the  ter 
ritories  are  excluded,  must  they  not  also  be  excluded 
in  the  first?  If  the  rule  of  uniformity  does  not  ap 
ply  to  the  territories,  how  can  the  power  to  tax  be 
used  in  the  United  States,  to  pay  the  debts  and  pro- 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  2OQ 

vide  for  the  defense  and  general  welfare  of  the  ter 
ritories?  Can  duties  be  levied  in  New  York  and 
other  ports  of  the  states,  to  be  expended  for  local 
purposes  in  Porto  Rico,  if  the  island  is  not  a  part 
of  the  United  States?  Are  the  debts  that  may  be 
contracted  by  what  the  law  calls  the  body  politic 
of  "The  People  of  Porto  Rico"  for  local  purposes, 
part  of  the  debt  of  the  United  States — notwithstand 
ing  that  the  island  is  no  part  of  the  United  States 
and  the  people  are  not  citizens  of  the  United  States? 
But  some  one  will  say  that  the  island  is  one  of  our 
outlying  defenses,  and  that  fortifications  and  naval 
stations  and  public  highways  there  are  necessary  to 
the  "common  defense."  Well,  is  it  also  true  that 
education  and  poor  relief,  and  fire  and  police  and 
health  protection,  and  all  other  agencies  of  local  order 
and  betterment  in  Porto  Rico,  are  included  in  the 
words  "the  general  welfare  of  the  United  States"? 
It  would  seem  that  a  region  of  which  it  can  be  said 
that  its  general  welfare  is  the  general  welfare  of  the 
United  States,  must  be  a  part  of  the  United  States,  and 
its  people  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

For  the  first  time  congress  has  laid  tariff  duties 
upon  goods  passing  from  a  territory  into  the  states. 
The  necessity  for  this  radical  departure  from  the  es 
tablished  practice  of  the  government  seems  to  have 
been  to  find  a  safe  basis  for  the  holding  and  gov 
erning  of  regions,  the  free  introduction  of  whose 


2IO  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

products  might  affect  the  home  industries  unfavor 
ably,  and  the  admission  of  whose  people  to  citizen 
ship  might  imply  future  statehood — or  at  least  the 
right  of  migration  and  settlement  in  the  states  of  an 
undesirable  population.  That  the  diversity  of  tongues 
in  the  Philippines,  and  the  utter  lack  of  the  Amer 
ican  likeness  in  everything  there,  presented  strong 
reasons  against  the  acquisition  of  the  islands,  I  free 
ly  admit. 

It  must  also  be  conceded  that  when,  as  we  are 
told,  Providence  laid  upon  us  the  heavy  duty  of  tak 
ing  over  and  governing  these  islands,  it  was  very 
natural  that  we  should  seek  to  find  a  way  of  govern 
ing  them  that  would  save  us  from  some  of  the  un 
pleasant  consequences  which  a  discharge  of  the  duty 
in  the  old  way  involved.  But  do  we  not  incur  a 
greater  loss  and  peril  from  the  new  doctrine,  that  our 
congress  and  executive  have  powers  not  derived  from 
the  constitution,  and  are  subject  to  no  restraints  or 
limitations  in  the  territories,  save  such  as  they  may 
impose  upon  themselves? 

Are  the  civil  rights  of  the  dwellers  on  the  main 
land  well  secured  against  the  insidiousness  of 
greed  and  ambition,  while  we  deny  to  the  island 
dwellers,  who  are  held  to  a  strict  allegiance,  the  only 
sure  defense  that  civil  rights  can  have — the  guar 
antees  of  constitutional  law?  Burke  saw  in  the  ab 
solute  powers  claimed  for  parliament,  in  the  Ameri- 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  211 

can  colonies,  danger  to  the  liberties  of  parliament 
itself.  As  so  often  quoted,  he  said: 

"For  we  are  convinced,  beyond  a  doubt,  that  a 
system  of  dependence  which  leaves  no  security  to  the 
people  for  any  part  of  their  freedom  in  their  own 
hands,  can  not  be  established  in  any  inferior  mem 
ber  of  the  British  empire  without  consequently  de 
stroying  the  freedom  of  that  very  body  in  favor  of 
whose  boundless  pretensions  such  a  scheme  is  adopt 
ed.  We  know  and  feel  that  arbitrary  power  over 
distant  regions  is  not  within  the  competence,  nor 
to  be  exercised  agreeably  to  the  forms  or  consist 
ently  with  the  spirit,  of  great  popular  assemblies." 

Are  we,  in  this  day  of  commercial  carnival,  inca 
pable  of  being  touched  by  such  considerations,  either 
in  our  fears  or  in  our  sense  of  justice?  Is  it  not 
likely  to  be  true  that  the  moral  tone  of  the  republic 
— our  estimation  of  constitutional  liberty — will  be 
lessened  by  the  creation  of  a  body  of  civilized  people 
over  whom  our  flag  waves  as  an  emblem  of  power 
only?  The  flag  can  not  stand  for  the  benevolent  pol 
icies  of  an  administration.  It  stands  for  more  per 
manent  things — for  things  that  changing  adminis 
trations  have  no  power  to  change.  Is  it  not  in  the 
nature  of  a  mockery  to  raise  the  flag  in  Porto  Rico 
and  bid  its  hopeful  people  hail  it  as  an  emblem  of 
emancipation,  while  the  governor  we  have  sent  them 
reads  a  proclamation,  from  the  foot  of  the  staff,  an 
nouncing  the  absolute  power  of  congress  over  them? 


212  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

How  would  the  pioneers  of  the  West  have  regarded 
a  declaration  that  they  were  not  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  or  a  duty  laid  upon  the  furs  they  sent  to  the 
states,  or  upon  the  salt  and  gunpowder  sent  from 
the  states  in  exchange,  even  if  a  preference  of  85 
per  cent,  had  been  given  them  over  the  people  of 
Canada?  It  is  safe  to  say  that  no  such  interpre 
tation  of  the  constitution  or  of  the  rights  of  the  peo 
ple  of  a  territory,  will  ever  be  offered  to  men  of 
American  descent. 

If  the  constitution,  so  far  as  it  is  applicable,  at 
taches  itself,  whether  congress  will  or  no,  to  all  ter 
ritory  taken  over  as  a  part  of  the  permanent  ter 
ritory  of  the  United  States,  it  is  there  to  stay  as  fun 
damental  law.  But  if  it  is  not  so,  an  act  of  congress 
declaring  that  the  constitution  is  "extended"  is  not 
fundamental  law,  but  statute  law,  and  may  be  re 
pealed  and  is  repealed  by  implication,  pro  tanto,  when 
ever  congress  passes  a  law  in  conflict  with  the  pro 
visions  of  the  "extended"  constitution.  If  the  con 
stitution  as  such,  as  fundamental  law,  is  extended 
over  new  territory,  it  must  be  the  result  of  an  act 
done — an  act  the  effect  of  which  is  in  itself,  not  in 
any  accompanying  declaration. 

If  the  act  of  annexation  does  not  carry  the  con 
stitution  into  a  territory,  I  can  think  of  nothing  that 
will,  save  the  act  of  admitting  the  territory  as  a  state. 

The  situation  of  the  Porto  Rican  people  is  scarcely 
less  mortifying  to  us  than  to  them;  they  owe  alle- 


STATUS    OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  213 

glance  but  have  no  citizenship.  Have  we  not  spoiled 
our  career  as  a  delivering  nation?  And  for  what? 
A  gentleman  connected  with  the  beet-sugar  indus 
try,  seeing  my  objections  to  the  constitutionality  of 
the  law,  and  having  a  friendly  purpose  to  help  me 
over  them,  wrote  to  say  that  the  duty  was  abso 
lutely  needed  to  protect  the  beet-sugar  industry. 
While  appreciating  his  friendliness,  I  felt  compelled 
to  say  to  him  that  there  was  a  time  for  considering 
the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  a  commercial 
sort  involved  in  taking  over  Porto  Rico,  but  that  that 
time  had  passed;  and  to  intimate  to  him  that  the 
needs  of  the  beet-sugar  industry  seemed  to  me  to  be 
irrelevant  in  a  constitutional  discussion. 

The  wise  man  did  not  say  there  was  a  future  time 
for  everything;  he  allowed  that  the  time  for  danc 
ing  might  be  altogether  behind  us,  and  a  less  pleas 
ant  exercise  before  us.  We  are  hardly  likely  to 
acquire  any  territory  that  will  not  come  at  some 
cost. 

That  we  give  back  to  Porto  Rico  all  of  the  rev 
enue  derived  from  the  customs  we  levy,  does  not 
seem  to  me  to  soften  our  dealings  with  her  people. 
Our  fathers  were  not  mollified  by  the  suggestion  that 
the  tea  and  stamp  taxes  would  be  expended  wholly 
for  the  benefit  of  the  colonies.  It  is  to  say:  We  do 
not  need  this  money;  it  is  only  levied  to  show  that 
your  country  is  no  part  of  the  United  States,  and 
that  you  are  not  citizens  of  the  United  States,  save 


214  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT, 

at  our  pleasure.  When  tribute  is  levied  and  immedi 
ately  returned  as  a  benefaction,  its  only  purpose  is  to 
declare  and  maintain  a  state  of  vassalage. 

But  I  am  not  sure  that  the  beet-sugar  objection 
is  not  more  tenable  than  another,  and  probably  more 
controlling  consideration,  which  ran  in  this  wise : 
"We  see  no  serious  commercial  disadvantages,  and 
no  threat  of  disorder,  in  accepting  Porto  Rico  to 
be  a  part  of  the  United  States — in  that  case  it  seems 
to  be  our  duty;  but  we  have  acquired  other  islands 
in  the  Orient,  of  large  area,  populated  by  a  turbu 
lent  and  rebellious  people;  and,  if  we  do  by  the 
Porto  Ricans  what  our  sense  of  justice  and  of  their 
friendliness  prompts  us  to  do,  some  illogical  person 
will  say  that  we  must  deal  in  the  same  way  with 
the  Philippines.  And  some  other  person  will  say  that 
the  free  intercourse  was  not  given  by  the  law,  but 
by  the  constitution." 

I  will  not  give  a  license  to  a  friend  to  cut  a  treo 
upon  my  land  to  feed  his  winter  fire,  because  my 
enemy  may  find  in  the  license  a  support  for  his  claim 
that  the  wood  is  a  common! 

If  we  have  confidence  that  the  constitution  does 
not  apply  to  the  territories,  surely  we  ought  to  use 
our  absolute  power  there  with  a  view  to  the  circum 
stances  attending  each  call  for  its  exercise.  Not  to 
do  this,  shows  a  misgiving  as  to  the  power. 

The  questions  raised  by  the  Porto  Rican  legislation 
have  been  discussed  chiefly  from  the  standpoint  of 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  215 

the  people  of  the  territories;  but  there  is  another 
view.  If,  in  its  tariff  legislation  relative  to  mer 
chandise  imported  into  the  territories  and  to  mer 
chandise  passed  from  the  territories  into  the  state, 
congress  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  uniformity  pre 
scribed  by  the  constitution,  it  would  seem  to  follow 
that  it  is  within  the  power  of  congress  to  allow  the 
admission  to  Porto  Rico  of  all  raw  materials  com 
ing  from  other  countries  free  of  duty,  and  to  admit 
to  all  ports  of  the  "United  States  proper,"  free  of 
duty,  the  products  manufactured  from  these  raw  ma 
terials.  As  the  people  of  the  "United  States  proper" 
choose  the  congressmen,  there  may  be  no  great  alarm 
felt  over  this  possibility;  but  it  is  worth  while  to 
note  that  a  construction  of  the  constitution  adopted 
to  save  us  from  a  competition  with  the  territories  on 
equal  grounds,  is  capable  of  being  turned  against  us 
and  to  their  advantage. 

The  courts  may  not  refuse  to  give  to  the  explicit 
words  of  a  law  their  natural  meaning,  because  of 
the  ill  consequences  that  may  follow;  but  they  may 
well  take  account  of  consequences  in  construing  doubt 
ful  phrases,  and  resolve  the  doubts  so  as  to  save  the 
purpose  of  the  law-makers,  where,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
constitutional  provision  we  are  considering,  that  pur 
pose  is  well  known.  They  will  not  construe  a  doubt- 
'ful  phrase  so  as  to  allow  the  very  thing  that  the 
law  was  intended  to  prevent. 

These  constitutional  questions  will  soon  be  decided 


2 1 6  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

by  the  supreme  court.  If  the  absolute  power  of  con 
gress  is  affirmed,  we  shall  probably  use  the  power 
with  discrimination  by  "extending"  the  constitution 
to  Porto  Rico  and  by  giving  to  its  people  a  full  ter 
ritorial  form  of  government,  and  such  protection  in 
their  civil  rights  as  an  act  of  congress  can  give.  If 
the  court  shall  hold  that  the  constitution,  in  the  parts 
not  in  themselves  inapplicable,  covers  all  territory 
made  a  permanent  part  of  our  domain,  from  the  mo 
ment  of  annexation  and  as  a  necessary  part  of  the 
United  States,  then  we  will  conform  our  legislation, 
with  deep  regret  that  we  assumed  a  construction  con 
trary  to  liberty,  and  with  some  serious  embarrass 
ments  that  might  have  been  avoided. 

There  has  been  with  many  a  mistaken  apprehen 
sion  that,  if  the  constitution,  of  its  own  force,  ex 
tends  to  Porto  Rico  and  the  Philippines,  and  gives 
American  citizenship  to  their  free  civilized  people, 
they  become  endowed  with  full  political  rights;  that 
their  consent  is  necessary  to  the  validity  and  right- 
fulness  of  all  civil  administration.  But  no  such  de 
duction  follows.  The  power  of  congress  to  legislate 
for  the  territories  is  full.  That  is,  there  is  no  leg 
islative  power  elsewhere  than  in  congress,  but  it  is 
not  absolute.  The  contention  is  that  all  the  powers 
of  congress  are  derived  from  the  constitution — in 
cluding  the  power  to  legislate  for  the  territories — 
and  that  such  legislation  must  necessarily,  always 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  217 

and  everywhere,  be  subject  to  the  limitations  of  the 
constitution. 

When  this  rule  is  observed,  the  consent  of  the  peo 
ple  of  the  territories  is  not  necessary  to  the  validity 
of  the  legislation.  The  new  territory  having  be 
come  a  part  of  the  national  domain,  the  people  dwell 
ing  therein  have  no  reserved  legal  right  to  sever  that 
relation,  or  to  set  up  therein  a  hostile  government. 
The  question  whether  the  United  States  can  take  over 
or  continue  to  hold  and  govern  a  territory  whose 
people  are  hostile,  is  not  a  question  of  constitutional 
or  international  law,  but  of  conscience  and  histori 
cal  consistency. 

Some  one  must  determine  when  and  how  far  the 
people  of  a  territory,  part  of  our  national  domain, 
can  be  entrusted  with  governing  powers  of  a  local 
nature,  and  when  the  broader  powers  of  statehood 
shall  be  conferred.  We  have  no  right  to  judge  the 
capacity  for  self-government  of  the  people  of  another 
nation,  or  to  make  an  alleged  lack  of  that  faculty 
an  excuse  for  aggression;  but  we  must  judge  of  this 
matter  for  our  territories.  The  interests  to  be  affected 
by  the  decision  are  not  all  local;  many  of  them  are 
national. 

These  questions  are  to  be  judged  liberally  and 
with  strong  leanings  to  the  side  of  popular  liberty, 
but  we  can  not  give  over  the  decision  to  the  peo 
ple  who  may  at  any  particular  time  be  settled  in  a 


2l8  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

territory.  We  have,  for  the  most  part,  in  our  his 
tory  given  promptly  to  the  people  of  the  territories 
a  large  measure  of  local  government,  and  have,  when 
the  admission  of  a  state  was  proposed,  thought  only 
of  boundaries  and  population.  But  this  was  because 
our  territories  have  been  contiguous  and.  chiefly  pop 
ulated  from  the  states. 

We  are -however,  not  only  at  liberty,  but  under  a 
duty,  to  take  account  also  of  the  quality  and  dispo 
sition  of  the  people,  and  we  have  in  one  or  two  in 
stances  done  so.  The  written  constitution  prescribes 
no  rule  for  these  cases.  The  question  whether  the 
United  States  shall  hold  conquered  territory,  or  ter 
ritory  acquired  by  'cession,  without  the  consent  of 
the  people  to  be  affected,  is  quite  apart  from  the 
question  whether,  having  acquired  and  incorporated 
such  territory,  we  can  govern  it  otherwise  than  un 
der  the  limitations  of  the  constitution. 

The  constitution  may  be  aided  in  things  doubtful 
by  the  declaration  of  independence.  It  may  be  as 
sumed  that  the  frame  of  civil  government  adopted 
was  intended  to  harmonize  with  the  declaration.  It 
is  the  preamble  of  the  constitution.  It  goes  before 
the  enacting  clause  and  declares  the  purpose  of  the 
law;  but  the  purpose  so  expressed  is  not  the  law 
unless  it  finds  renewed  expression  after  the  enacting 
clause.  We  shall  be  plainly  recreant  to  the  spirit  and 
purpose  of  the  constitution,  if  we  arbitrarily  deny  to 
the  people  of  a  territory  as  large  a  measure  of  popu- 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY 

lar  government  as  their  good  disposition  and  intel 
ligence  will  warrant.  Necessarily,  the  judgment  of 
this  question,  however,  is  with  congress.  The  con 
stitution  prescribes  no  rule — could  not  do  so — and 
the  courts  can  not  review  the  discretion  of  congress. 

But  we  are  now  having  it  dinned  into  our  ears  that 
expansion  is  the  law  of  life,  and  that  expansion  is 
not  practicable  if  the  constitution  is  to  go  with  the 
flag.  Lord  Salisbury,  some  years  ago,  stated  this 
supposed  law  of  national  life.  In  a  recent  address, 
Mr.  James  Bryce  says,  by  way  of  comment: 

"He  thinks  it  like  a  bicycle,  which  must  fall  when 
it  comes  to  a  standstill  It  is  an  awkward  result 
of  this  doctrine  that  when  there  is  no  more  room  for 
expansion,  and  a  time  must  come,  perhaps  soon, 
when  there  will  be  no  more  room,  the  empire  will 
begin  to  decline." 

If  Great  Britain,  with  her  accepted  methods  of  ter 
ritorial  growth,  finds  the  problem  of  growth  by  ex 
pansion  increasingly  hard,  it  will  be  harder  for  us, 
for  we  are  fettered  by  our  traditions  as  to  popular 
rights,  at  least — if  not  by  our  constitution. 

But  expansion  is  not  necessarily  of  a  healthy  sort; 
it  may  be  dropsical.  If  judgment  is  passed  now, 
the  attempted  conquest  of  the  Boer  republics  has  not 
strengthened  Great  Britain.  She  has  not  gained  es 
teem.  She  has  not  increased  her  loyal  population. 
She  has  created  a  need  for  more  outlying  garri 
sons — already  too  numerous.  She  has  strained  her 


22O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

military  and  financial  resources,  and  has  had  a  rev 
elation  of  the  need  of  larger  armies  and  stronger 
coast-defenses  at  home.  The  recent  appeal  of  Lord 
Salisbury  at  the  lord  mayor's  banquet  for  more  com 
plete  island  defenses  is  more  significant.  Did  the 
South  African  war  furnish  a  truer  measure  of  the 
empire's  land  strength  than  the  familiar  campaign 
ing  against  half-savage  peoples  had  done?  The  old 
coach,  with  its  power  to  stand  as  well  as  to  move, 
may  after  all  be  a  safer  carriage,  for  the  hopes  and 
interests  of  a  great  people,  than  the  bicycle. 

Some  one  will  say,  increasing  years  and  retire 
ment  and  introspection  have  broken  your  touch  with 
practical  affairs  and  left  you  out  of  sympathy  with 
the  glowing  prospects  of  territorial  expansion  that 
now  opens  before  us;  that  it  has  always  been  so; 
the  Louisiana  and  the  Alaskan  purchases  were  op 
posed  by  some  fearful  souls.  But  I  have  been  mak 
ing  no  argument  against  expansion.  The  recent  ac 
quisitions  from  Spain  must  present  widely  different 
conditions  from  all  previous  acquisitions  of  territory, 
since  it  seems  to  be  admitted  that  they  can  not  be 
allowed  to  become  a  part  of  the  United  States  with 
out  a  loss  that  overbalances  the  gain;  that  we  can 
only  safely  acquire  them  upon  the  condition  that  we 
can  govern  them  without  any  constitutional  restraint. 

One  who  has  retired  from  the  service,  but  not  from 
'the  love  of  his  country,  must  be  pardoned  if  he  finds 
;himself  unable  to  rejoice  in  the  acquisition  of  lands 


STATUS   OF   ANNEXED   TERRITORY  221 

and  forests  and  mines  and  commerce,  at  the  cost  of 
the  abandonment  of  the  old  American  idea  that  a  gov 
ernment  of  absolute  powers  is  an  intolerable  thing, 
and,  under  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  an  im 
possible  thing.  The  view  of  the  constitution  I  have 
suggested  will  not  limit  the  power  of  territorial  ex 
pansion;  but  it  will  lead  us  to  limit  the  use  of  that 
power  to  regions  that  may  safely  become  a  part  of 
the  United  States,  and  to  peoples  whose  American 
citizenship  may  be  allowed.  It  has  been  said  that 
the  flash  of  Dewey's  guns  in  Manila  bay  revealed  to 
the  American  people  a  new  mission.  I  like  rather  to 
think  of  them  as  revealing  the  same  old  mission  that 
we  read  in  the  flash  of  Washington's  guns  at  York- 
town. 

God  forbid  that  the  day  should  ever  come  when, 
in  the  American  mind,  the  thought  of  man  as  a 
"consumer"  shall  submerge  the  old  American 
thought  of  man  as  a  creature  of  God,  endowed  with 
"unalienable  rights." 


MUSINGS  ON  CURRENT  TOPICS 

First  Paper 
North  American  Review,  February,  1901 

It  is  a  rare  pleasure  to  make  a  good  end  of  a  long 
and  strenuous  effort;  to  put  wholly  out  of  the  mind 
a  subject  that  has  filled  every  chamber  of  it  for  two 
years.  Minds  are  lodging-houses.  The  lodgers  are 
of  all  sorts — casuals  and  regulars,  modest  attic-dwell 
ers  who  have  no  call  bells,  and  first-floor  boarders 
who  rent  a  large  space  and  fill  a  larger  one.  Now 
and  then  some  pretentious  and  exacting  fellow  crowds 
out  every  other  lodger  and  takes  the  house.  There 
is  not  wanting  a  sense  of  the  dignity  the  house  bor 
rows  from  this  august  guest;  but  emancipation  abides 
his  going.  When  the  last  truckload  of  his  baggage 
has  departed,  and  the  door  is  barred  against  the 
spirits  that  have  a  penchant  for  garnished  houses, 
what  a  glad  sense  of  freedom  the  overworked  mis 
tress  feels !  Every  room  vacant,  but  nothing  "to  let." 
This  will  not  do  for  a  permanent  state,  but  as  a  short 
experience  it  is  ecstatic.  I  have  known  what  it  is 
to  have  an  imperial  tenant  of  the  whole  mind,  and 
have  experienced  the  joys  of  an  ouster.  The  case 
of  Venezuela,  in  the  Anglo- Venezuelan  arbitration, 

222 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  223 

demanded  the  unremitting  labor  of  two  years.  What 
a  sense  of  freedom  came,  .when  every  book  and  paper 
connected  with  the  case  was  put  out  of  sight!  I 
was  again  in  fellowship  with  the  undergraduates 
dancing  over  the  grave  of  the  calculus.  The  trouble, 
with  the  calculus  is  that  you  must  work  out  the 
problems,  you  must  bring  the  answers.  If  you  could 
stop  when  one  problem  gets  hard  and  try  another, 
as  the  squirrel  does  with  his  nuts,  the  undergraduate 
would  regard  the  book  differently.  A  non  sequitur 
is  a  hateful  thing.  Answers  must  be  right.  But  it 
is  not,  I  hope,  a  sin  against  a  sound  mind  to  stop 
short  of  an  answer;  you  do  not  need  to  climb  to 
the  top  of  every  hill  you  see.  To  raise  questions, 
to  speculate,  to  balance  such  pros  and  cons  as  come 
easy,  and  to  stop  short  of  conclusions,  is  admissible 
— in  vacation. 

The  notes  that  follow  are  largely  exercises  of  that 
sort,  made  chiefly  during  the  winter  days  when 
there  were  no  tenants,  and  the  sign  "to  let"  was  not 
in  the  window. 

The  electric,  self-binding  newspaper  drops  its 
sheaves  at  our  feet  with  bewildering  rapidity.  The 
stackers  must  keep  up;  but  a  vagrant  may  take  a 
sheaf  for  a  pillow  and  lie  down  in  the  shade. 

THE  ANTI-WAR  PARTY 

There  is  an  anti-war  party  in  Great  Britain  and 
another  in  the  United  States.  A  war  seems  to  imply 


224  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

an  anti-war  party.  Indeed,  the  Gospels  carry  suck 
an  implication  in  a  general  sense.  Both  here  and 
in  Great  Britain  the  anti-war  party  has  been  brought 
under  fire  of  bitter  invective.  We,  for  the  most  part, 
decline  to  discuss  with  the  anti-war  man  the  justice 
of  the  war.  That  issue  has  been  voted  upon  and 
carried,  we  say,  and  every  one  is  bound,  not  only  as 
to  his  actions,  but  as  to  his  speech. 

But  is  the  morality  of  the  motto,  "My  country, 
right  or  wrong,"  susceptible  of  defense?  Is  it  not 
to  say:  "It  is  right  to  do  wrong?" — for  the  senti 
ment  implies  action.  But  may  it  not  be  quite  the 
right,  and  even  the  necessary,  thing  to  say  nothing 
"just  now"?  If  my  father  is  engaged  in  a  wanton 
assault  upon  another  man,  and  blows  are  being  ex 
changed,.  I  must  in  my  heart  condemn  my  father; 
but  am  I  called  upon  to  trip  him,  or  to  encourage 
his  adversary  by  telling  him  his  adversary  is  in  the 
right?  That  would  clearly  be  the  duty  of  a  by 
stander  not  of  the  blood  of  either  combatant.  But 
do  I  very  much  offend,  or  become  particeps,  if  I  with 
hold  for  the  moment  an  expression  of  my  disappro 
bation  of  my  father's  conduct?  Or,  on  the  other 
hand,  can  it  be  demanded  as  a  filial  duty  that  I  cheer 
him  on,  and  when  his  weapon  fails  give  him  an 
other?  Is  it  unfilial  to  say,  "Father,  you  are  in  the 
wrong — stop"?  I  can  not  get  him  into  a  closet 
that  I  may  say  this  in  his  ear.  His  antagonist  will 
hear  it.  And,  if  I  speak  in  the  necessary  hearing 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  225 

of  both,  can  my  father  retort,  "If  I  am  killed,  you 
are  my  murderer;  you  have  encouraged  my  adver 
sary"?  But,  if  the  battle  goes  too  hardly  against 
him,  must  I  not  intervene  and  save  his  life?  I  can 
flagellate  his  spirit  while  I  am  binding  his  wounds. 
But  if  he  is  the  victor,  must  I  not  bind  the  wounds 
of  his  adversary,  and  support  his  adversary's  de 
mand  for  compensation? 

A  country  at  war  is  very  intolerant — the  home 
guards  more  than  the  veterans,  and  the  politicians 
most  of  all.  When  war  is  once  flagrant,  public  sen 
timent — at  least  that  part  of  it  that  finds  expression 
— demands  that  every  citizen  shall  be  active  in  sup 
port  of  it.  To  speak  against  the  war,  to  impugn  its 
justice,  is  to  encourage  the  enemy,  is  to  be  guilty  of 
the  death  of  such  of  your  countrymen  as  afterward 
fall  in  action.  The  mob  may  not  seek  you,  but  you 
are  a  "suspect"  to  your  neighbors.  You  will  not 
be  heard  to  offer  such  specious  suggestions  as  that 
not  you  who  opposed  but  those  who  brought  on  an 
unjust  war  are  guilty  of  the  blood  of  the  brave  fel 
lows  who  are  sent  into  action. 

Indeed,  you  will  not  be  heard  at  all,  by  this  gen 
eration  of  your  countrymen,  unless  disasters  in  war 
and  money  burdens  open  the  way.  Your  magna 
nimity  and  sense  of  justice  will  be  praised  by  the 
alien  people  in  whose  behalf  your  voice  was  raised. 
They  may  even  build  monuments  in  your  honor,  as 
we  did  to  Pitt;  but  the  home  newspapers  will,  while 


226  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT, 

you  live,  make  you  wish  you  had  never  been  born; 
and,  when  you  are  dead,  they  will  now  and  then 
exhume  your  skeleton  to  frighten  those  who  live 
after  you.  You  must  give  your  soul  to  torments 
and  expatriate  your  fame.  A  sea  will  roll  between 
your  monument  and  your  bones.  But  a  monument 
is  a  community  rather  than  a  personal  necessity. 
The  free  spirit  of  a  just  man  does  not  need  a  perch. 

"The  gentleman  tells  us  America  is  obstinate, 
America  is  almost  in  open  rebellion.  Sir,  I  rejoice 
that  America  has  resisted!  Three  millions  of  people 
so  dead  to  all  the  feelings  of  liberty  as  voluntarily  to 
be  slaves,  would  have  been  fit  instruments  to  make 
slaves  of  all  the  rest." 

For  more  than  a  century,  American  school-boys 
declaimed  these  words  of  Pitt.  Virginia  voted  him 
a  statue  and  New  York  set  one  up  at  Wall  and  Wil 
liam  streets. 

"Congress  passed,"  says  Frothingham,  "a  warm 
and  grateful  vote  of  thanks  to  the  noble  advocates 
of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  in  and  out  of  Parlia 
ment,  who  had  generously  defended  the  cause  of 
America." 

In  his  proposed  address  to  the  king,  in  1777,  Burke 
said  many  like  things,  the  nobility  of  which  we  have 
greatly  applauded. 

The  utterances  of  these  great  Englishmen  are 
very  like  in  spirit  to  what  Senator  Hoar  has  recently 
said  about  the  war  in  the  Philippines.  We  do  not 


MUSINGS   ON   CURRENT   TOPICS  227 

agree  that  the  cases  are  parallel.  We  are  persuaded 
that  the  Filipino  and  the  American  are  unlike,  and 
that  Aguinaldo  and  George  Washington  have  no 
points  of  resemblance.  We  have  the  capacity  of  self- 
government;  we  deny  that  capacity  to  the  Filipinos. 
Mr.  Hoar  has  failed,  apparently,  to  see  that  the  prin 
ciple  that  government  derives  its  just  powers  from 
the  consent  of  the  governed  can  not  be  invoked  by 
a  people  incapable  of  self-government.  In  the  in 
terests  of  humanity,  all  people  must  be  governed; 
and  if  they  are  incapable  of  governing  themselves, 
does  it  not  follow  that  some  other  nation  must  gov 
ern  them?  But  it  was  not  our  purpose  to  bring  into 
question  Senator  Hoar's  conclusions,  but  to  consider 
the  measure  of  his  guilt  in  giving  expression  to  them 
as  his  honest  convictions. 

Pitt  and  Burke  had  not  only  great  praise  with  us, 
but  their  repute  in  Great  Britain  is  now  the  greater 
by  reason  of  these  utterances.  The  Mother  Coun 
try  has  "come  around." 

Does  it  depend  upon  the  outcome?  If  the  war 
fails,  do  such  utterances  become  noble  and  wise,  and 
do  they  remain  ignoble  if  the  alleged  aggressor  is 
victorious?  Is  there  no  way  to  stop  any  war  but  to 
fight  it  out;  or  must  the  stopping  of  it  always  be  left 
to  the  war  party?  In  the  popular  judgment,  gen 
erally  yes;  but  in  law  and  morals,  how  is  it?  The 
constitution  of  the  United  States  very  clearly  saves 
the  liberty  of  the  citizen  to  say  that  a  war  is  wrong. 


228  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

The  statue  at  William  and  Wall  streets  had  not 
been  forgotten. 

It  is  not  treason  to  say  that  a  war  is  unjust.  But 
if  not  noticeable  by  the  law,  such  things  may  still 
be  contrary  to  duty.  Was  there  a  duty  upon  Sen 
ator  Hoar  to  keep  silence?  His  motives  were  un- 
impeachably  pure.  All  agree  that  he  was  not  seek 
ing  the  applause  of  his  countrymen  of  this  genera 
tion.  All  agree  that  he  has  the  old  New  England 
conscience  and  the  old  American  fervor  for  liberty 
and  human  rights.  Possibly,  he  lacks  the  mercantile 
spirit.  He  may  not  give  sufficient  consideration  to 
the  metals  and  coal  and  forests  of  the  Philippines. 

But  the  question  we  are  pondering  is  not  were 
his  views  right,  but  did  he  offend  against  his  coun 
try  by  giving  expression  to  them?  Now,  it  can  not 
be  wrong  to  proclaim  the  truth  when  a  matter  is  in 
debate.  Are  we  not  compelled,  therefore,  to  prove 
his  views  to  be  wrong,  before  passing  final  sentence 
upon  him?  The  popular  condemnation  sure  to  be 
meted  out  to  the  men  who  oppose  when  war  is  fla 
grant  is  a  mighty,  repressive  force.  But  if  some 
one,  for  conscience'  sake,  assails  the  war  as  cruel 
and  unjustifiable,  must  we  not  justify  it  ?  Is  it  enough 
to  say,  "You  are  prolonging  it;  you  are  sacrificing 
the  brave  fellows  whom  we  have  sent  to  the  front"? 
There  is  a  semblance  of  unreason  in  charging  the 
man  who  is  trying  to  stop  a  fight  with  the  bruises 
and  wounds  that  ensue  upon  the  failure  of  his  ef- 


MUSINGS   ON   CURRENT  TOPICS  229 

forts.  To  perfect  the  argument  and  fix  his  responsi 
bility,  must  we  not  introduce  this  major  premise? — 
The  war  is  just  and  can  not  be  stopped  until  the 
enemy  has  yielded. 

Is  there  any  other  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter 
than  this?  A  patriot  may,  if  his  conscience  can  not 
otherwise  be  quieted,  oppose  a  war  upon  which  his 
country  has  entered;  but  if  he  does  so,  he  puts  his 
fame  in  the  keeping  of  a  distant  generation  of  his 
countrymen,  or  possibly  of  an  alien  people.  What 
some  other  people  have  said  makes  it  proper  to  say 
here,  that  we  must  not  forget  that  the  soldier  who 
rights  the  war  does  not  declare  it.  He  must  not 
denounce  it,  nor  must  any  patriot  denounce  him. 
The  appeal,  silent  or  spoken,  that  comes  from  him  to 
his  fellow-countrymen,  not  to  make  the  war  longer 
or  harder,  reaches  the  heart.  He  is  our  country 
man;  he  carries  and  keeps  the  flag.  We  must  be 
tender,  and  careful  that  we  do  not  spoil  his  esprit  de 
corps  by  ingratitude,  or  dash  his  courage  by  a  failure 
to  applaud  it,  or  wound  him  by  imputing  designs 
against  his  country's  liberties. 

An  armed  rebellion  against  the  state  must  usually 
justify  itself  by  something  more  than  a  schedule  of 
wrongs — a  chance,  at  least,  of  righting  the  wrongs. 
And  is  it  not  possible  that  this  principle  sometimes 
applies  to  rebellious  consciences,  and  requires  them 
to  take  the  balance  of  good  and  evil? 

Of  course,  there  must  be  a  time  for  denouncing 


23O  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

an  unjust  war;  but  does  a  troubled  conscience  have 
all  seasons  for  its  own,  or  only  a  time  before  the 
war  begins  and  a  time  after  it  is  over?  The  latter 
view  is  held  by  so  many  that  it  is  not  safe  to  assume 
that  all  who  do  not  denounce  a  war  approve  it. 

The  almost  unbroken  record  of  disaster  that  has 
attended  the  anti-war  parties  should  have  the  whole 
some  effect  of  discouraging  a  factious  party  opposi 
tion.  We  can  get  along  with  consciences;  indeed, 
we  can  not  get  along  without  them,  if  the  reign  of 
the  Prince  of  Peace  is  ever  to  be  brought  in.  The 
emphasis  should  be  put  upon  the  facts  that  justify 
the  war,  rather  than  upon  epithets. 


A  "WORLD  POWER" 


The  newspapers  gave  another  turn  to  the  vagrant 
questionings  in  which  I  was  indulging  myself,  by 
their  frequent  references  to  the  assumed  fact  that 
the  United  States  has  become  a  "World  Power." 
We  have  been  a  power,  as  that  term  is  used  by  the 
law  writers  and  in  conventions,  for  more  than  a  cen 
tury.  We  have  been  a  power  in  a  military  sense 
on  the  land  for  many  years,  and  by  spells  a  naval 
power  of  renown.  In  a  moral  sense,  we  have  long 
been  familiar  with  the  idea  that  we  were  the  greatest 
of  world  powers.  We  have  believed  that  we  had 
found  and  illustrated  a  scheme  of  free,  popular  gov 
ernment  that  would  in  time  stir  the  sympathy  and 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  231 

emulation  of  all  nations  and  bring  in  everywhere 
republican  governments. 

Mr.  Webster  said:  "We  are  placed  at  the  head 
of  the  system  of  representative  and  popular  govern 
ments."  It  is  not  in  this  familiar  and  sentimental 
sense,  however,  that  we  are  now  said  to  have  be 
come  a  world  power.  Indeed,  those  who  most  af 
fect  the  term  seem  to  be  quite  shy  of  that  sense. 

What  is  it,  how  did  it  come  about,  and  what  ad 
vantages  and  responsibilities  accompany  the  new 
status  ?  Great  Britain  and  the  great  continental  pow 
ers,  with  more  or  less  cordiality,  have  admitted  the 
fact.  Did  it  not  indeed  have  a  European  announce 
ment?  Did  our  war  with  Spain  make  us  a  world 
power,  or  reveal  to  us  and  to  the  world  a  pre-exist 
ing  fact?  As  a  revelation,  it  apparently  came  largely 
out  of  the  naval  fights  at  Manila  and  Santiago.  It 
was  not  the  charge  at  San  Juan  hill;  for,  in  the 
way  of  land  fighting,  we  had  many  times  done 
greater  things  than  that.  Indeed,  in  the  way  of  naval 
tactics  and  desperate  courage,  Paul  Jones  and  De- 
catur  and  Perry  and  Farragut  may  be  taken  to  have 
suggested  long  ago  to  observing  naval  critics  that 
the  United  States  had  the  capacity  to  be  a  sea  power. 
Nothing  has  happened  to  make  us  forget  these  and 
other  great  naval  captains.  Their  ships  were  chiefly 
wooden,  and  their  guns  smooth-bore  muzzle-loaders; 
but  they  came  close,  their  holds  were  often  flooded 
and  their  decks  slippery  with  blood.  Our  ships  went 


232  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

into  a  period  of  decay,  but  our  navy  personnel  did 
not.  We  added  some  hasty  scouting  and  cruising 
strength  to  our  navy  in  the  Spanish  war,  but  only 
a  little  increased  its  fighting  strength.  It  was  not 
these  additions  to  our  naval  strength  that  made  us 
a  world  power.  The  naval  fights  of  the  Spanish  war 
did  not  originate  a  naval  prestige,  but  revived  it — 
caused  other  powers  to  remember  that,  if  we  set 
about  it,  we  could  build  unsurpassed  warships  and 
fight  them  unsurpassingly. 

Relatively,  we  have  been  stronger  as  to  war  ves 
sels  than  we  are  now — notably,  at  the  close  of  the 
civil  war.  But  there  was  no  talk  then  of  being  a 
world  power.  We  did  not  aspire  to  more  than  to 
be  the  American  power — a  half  world  power.  So, 
after  all,  it  could  not  have  been  our  ships  or  our 
naval  victories  that  made  us  a  world  power.  Some 
thing  must  be  added,  and  it  would  seem  that  the 
addition  must  have  relation  to  some  new  use  of  our 
military  strength.  The  old  use  was  wholly  defensive, 
though  the  campaign  might  be  what  military  men 
call  "offensive-defensive."  Paul  Jones  had  entered 
the  British  channels.  Our  guns  had  been  heard  in 
the  Mediterranean.  The  "Alabama"  was  sunk  off 
Cherbourg.  But  all  these  visits  were  casual,  and  all 
had  relation  solely  to  American  rights  and  liberty 
and  the  freedom  of  the  seas.  So,  too,  the  Spanish 
war  had  its  origin  in  an  American  question.  We 
assumed  a  police  duty  in  Cuba,  because  it  is  an  Amer- 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  233 

lean  island — because  the  cry  of  "murder"  was  on 
our  beat.  Succor  was  an  American,  not  a  world 
question.  We  did  not  assume  a  duty  to  police  the 
world.  We  expressly  disclaimed  any  hope  of  re 
ward  for  our  intervention.  All  this  was  quite  out 
of  the  role  of  a  world  power.  Indeed,  it  seemed 
too  sentimentally  fantastic  to  obtain  the  credence  of 
the  world  powers.  Some  were  incredulously  sarcastic. 
Great  Britain  alone  kindly  made  us  think  that  she 
accepted  our  altruistic  conceptions. 

The  world  powers  have  been  those  who  allowed  no 
geographical  limitations — that  is,  none  appertaining 
to  terrestrial  geography.  The  appropriation  of  the 
stars  must,  of  course,  await  the  air-ship.  We  only, 
among  the  strong  nations,  have  lived  under  self-im 
posed  limitations,  of  two  sorts — one  that  had  to  do 
with  geography  and  another  that  had  to  do  with 
public  morality.  We  have  said:  "We  do  not  want, 
in  any  event,  territorial  possessions  that  have  no 
direct  relation  to  the  body  of  our  national  domain, 
and  we  do  not  want  any  territory  anywhere  that  is 
acquired  by  criminal  aggression."  And  as  t®  the 
doctrine  of  "spheres  of  influence" — the  modern  eu 
phemistic  rendering  of  territorial  pocket-picking — 
we  have  denied  its  application  to  this  hemisphere  and 
denied  to  ourselves  the  use  of  it  anywhere.  "We 
will  not — and  the  European  governments  had,  on  the 
whole,  better  not — interfere  with  the  autonomy  and 
independence  of  any  American  state,"  is  our  rendering. 


234  VIEWS    OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT. 

We  claimed  no  commercial  advantages,  save  such 
as  fair  reciprocal  trade  treaties  might  give  to  MS. 
In  all  European  cabinet  entanglements,  we  were  qui 
escent.  The  apportionment  of  Africa,  and  the  "rec 
tification"  of  Asiatic  boundaries  by  the  division  of 
lands  that  belonged  to  neither  disputant  excited 
American  notice  of  an  unofficial  sort  only.  Our 
touch  with  the  other  great  powers  was  at  two  points 
only:  first,  in  the  pleasant  exchanges  of  good  will, 
and,  second,  in  the  watchful  care  that  neither  our 
commerce  nor  our  people  were  unjustly  discriminated 
against.  The  great  value  of  our  markets  and  our 
great  food  surplus  strongly  supported  our  demands 
for  equal  trade  advantages,  and  our  increasing  mili 
tary  strength  emphasized  the  value  of  a  friendship 
unaffected  by  inherited  animosities  and  free  from  en 
tangling  alliances.  Our  position  was,  of  all  the  na 
tions,  the  safest  and  most  hopeful.  Does  the  sup 
posed  new  status  imply  a  change  of  position  or 
policy  ? 

If  the  world  powers  have  any  recognized  creed,  it 
is  that  k  is  their  duty  as  "trustees  for  humanity"  to 
take  over  the  territories  of  all  the  weak  and  decay 
ing  nations,  having  regard  among  themselves  to  the 
doctrine  of  "equivalents."  Have  we  become  a  world 
power  by  an  initiation  into  this  bund?  The  only 
reason  for  the  continued  independent  existence  of  a 
weak  nation,  in  the  judgment  of  the  world  powers, 
is  found  in  the  difficulty  sometimes  experienced  in 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  235 

applying  or  disregarding,  in  its  case,  this  doctrine 
of  "equivalents."  A  world  power  seems,  therefore, 
to  be  a  power  having  the  purpose  to  take  over  so 
much  of  the  world  as  it  can  by  any  means  possess, 
and  having  with  this  appetite  for  dominion  mili 
tary  strength  enough  to  compel  other  nations  hav 
ing  the  same  appetite  to  allow  or  divide  the  spoils. 
A  veiled  expression  of  the  same  definition  is  found 
in  the  terms  "colonizing  nations."  There  has  been 
an  attempt  to  associate  the  United  States  with  this 
program  of  civilization,  upon  the  theory  that  the 
"Anglo-Saxon"  has  a  divine  concession  that  covers 
the  earth.  This  appeal  to  a  divine  decree  is  itself 
a  concession  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  common-law  rule, 
that  the  plaintiff  in  ejectment  must  show  title. 

The  argument  runs  thus :  "The  earth  is  the  Lord's 
and  the  fullness  thereof."  So  much  is  of  record. 
The  next  step  is  more  difficult,  for  there  is  no  prophet, 
no  sealed  transfer,  no  mention  by  name  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon.  "The  meek  shall  inherit  the  earth" — but  the 
boldest  advocate  of  expansion  dare  not  suggest,  as 
the  minor  premise,  that  John  Bull  and  Uncle  Sam 
are  of  that  class.  That  Scripture  seems  to  lead  away 
from  them.  We  must  get  away  from  all  texts,  I  fear. 
Perhaps  this  is  the  best  that  can  be  done — certainly 
it  is  the  best  that  has  been  done — Major  premise: 
God's  purpose  is  that  men  shall  make  a  full  and  the 
best  use  of  all  His  gifts.  Minor  premise :  Dominion 
is  one  of  His  gifts,  and  the  Anglo-Saxon  makes  a 


'236  VIEWS    OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

better  use  of  dominion  than  the  Latin,  or  the  Boers, 
or  the  Chinese.  Conclusion:  The  Anglo-Saxon, 
therefore,  executes  a  divine  purpose  when  he  sub 
dues  these  peoples  and  takes  over  their  lands. 

Is  not  this  program  logically  perfect  and  commer 
cially  profitable?  The  man  who  buries  his  talent 
must  go  into  darkness.  We  are  a  little  hampered 
in  the  proposed  association  with  Great  Britain  in 
this  program  of  regeneration,  by  reason  of  the  fact 
that  our  declaration  of  independence  was  writ  too 
broad.  The  Briton  has  very  carefully  limited  his 
charters  of  liberty  to  a  declaration  of  his  own  rights, 
while  we  have  unfortunately  written  into  ours  "all 
men."  There  is  also  a  practical  difficulty  that  must 
be  thought  of.  We  are  late  in  getting  into  the  busi 
ness.  The  vacant  lands — the  lands  occupied  only  by 
savages — have  been  taken  up.  The  business  seems 
now  to  promise  responsibility  and  outlay  rather  than 
profits.  The  melon-patch  has  been  spoliated,  and  the 
melon  cut  and  divided.  A  new  boy  comes  upon  the 
company  in  the  wooded  hollow  and  is  invited  to 
take  one  of  the  ends  of  the  melon.  There  is  a  very 
small  show  of  red  meat,  and  even  that  is  very  diffi 
cult  of  appropriation.  If  he  is  a  wise  boy,  he  will 
go  his  way — even  though  he  has  no  scruples  about 
robbing  melon  patches.  The  effusive  cordiality  of 
the  invitation  to  make  himself  one  of  the  party,  will 
not  make  him  forget  the  disproportion  between  the 
risks  and  the  red  meat. 


MUSINGS   ON   CURRENT   TOPICS  237 

If  the  United  States  now  enters  upon  a  scheme 
rof  colonization,  it  must  plunge  in — put  away  all 
scruples;  there  is  no  time  to  linger  shivering  on  the 
brink.  The  frame  of  our  government  is  excellent; 
there  are  some  weak  states  that  would  be  bettered 
by  accepting  our  domination;  and  seeing  that  they 
are  so  ignorant  as  not  to  see  the  advantages  of  ac 
cepting  it,  is  it  not  our  duty  to  compel  them?  Can 
we  innocently  stand  by  and  see  nations  distracted — 
property  insecure,  resources  unused?  Very  many 
good  people — some  ministers  of  the  gospel  of  peace 
— have  been  saying  that  they  hoped  Great  Britain 
would  succeed  in  taking  over  the  Transvaal  and  the 
Orange  Free  State,  because  "Christian  civilization" 
would  be  advanced  by  "British  paramountcy"  in  South 
Africa.  Old-fashioned  moralists  were  in  the  habit 
,of  scouting  the  maxim,  "The  end  justifies  the  means." 
The  imputation  of  this  maxim  to  a  noted  religious 
order,  as  a  rule  of  action,  had  much  to  do  with  the 
general  odium  in  which  that  order  was  once  held. 

The  peace  of  the  world  has  been  thought  hereto 
fore  to  depend  upon  the  allowance  of  the  doctrine 
that  men  and  civilized  nations  have,  as  to  other  men 
'and  nations,  the  right  to  do  something  less  than  the 
best  with  their  possessions,  and  to  judge  in  large 
part  for  themselves  what  is  best. 

This  view  does  not,  of  course,  exclude  the  right, 
in  the  last  resort,  of  other  nations  to  intervene  for  the 
saving  of  a  population  from  destruction  by  the  bar- 


238  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENZ- 

barous  use  of  the  civil  authority.  There  are  excep 
tional  cases  when  remonstrance,  and  even  armed 
force,  may  be  justified;  but,  in  such  cases,  the  deliv 
ering  nation  must  follow  the  role  taken  to  the  end. 

Individual  and  national  independence  implies  the 
exclusive  right  to  determine  some  things.  Persua 
sion  and  remonstrance,  even,  have  their  limits,  pass 
ing  which  they  become  impertinence.  "It  is  none 
of  your  business,"  may  lack  some  of  the  elements 
of  polite  discourse,  but  there  are- times  when  it  ought 
to  be  said.  The  "up-stream"  wolf,  as  Mr.  Hoar  calls 
him,  in  the  old  fable,  has  suffered  great  obloquy  be 
cause  he  felt  compelled  to  put  his  intervention  upon 
the  untenable  ground  that  he  was  injured  by  the 
soiling  of  the  waters.  He  lived,  unfortunately,  in  a 
day  when  men  and  beasts  felt  compelled  to  show 
that  what  they  meddled  in  was  proper  concern  of 
theirs.  It  was  a  narrow  view.  He  should  have  said : 
"True,  the  muddy  water  does  not  come  to  my  lips, 
but  your  habit  of  drinking  it  is  bad;  you  are  not 
neat;  and  besides  you  hold  yourself  aloof,  and  re 
fuse  to  admit  my  children  to  the  sheepfold." 

What  has  hitherto  saved  the  United  States  in  great 
measure  from  the  land  lust  and  made  her  respect  the 
independence  and  territorial  autonomy  of  her  weak 
neighbors?  Was  it  that  we  did  not  until  now  feel 
the  need  of  more  territory;  or  was  it  a  conservative 
timidity;  or  is  there  an  American  conscience  that 
reprobates  aggression  and  rejects  the  new  doctrine. 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  239 

that  the  right  of  weak  states  to  govern  themselves 
rests  not  upon  the  consent  of  their  own  people,  but 
upon  the  consent  of  the  nearest  world  power? 

The  Monroe  doctrine  has  been  understood  to  dis 
claim  for  ourselves  what  it  denies  to  the  powers  of 
Europe.  The  declaration  of  Mr.  Monroe  was,  Mr. 
Jefferson  said,  "our  protest  against  the  atrocious  vio 
lations  of  the  rights  of  nations  by  the  interference 
of  any  one  in  the  internal  affairs  of  another."  It 
seems  to  have  been  always  the  way  of  this  states 
man  to  generalize.  This  accounts  for  the  presence, 
in  the  declaration  of  independence,  of  philosophical 
maxims  that  now  threaten  embarrassment  to  our 
progress  as  a  world  power.  We  must  differentiate 
ourselves.  We  must  proceed  upon  the  theory  that 
our  standards  are  right,  and  our  civil  organization 
and  social  customs  most  promotive  of  the  glory  of 
God  and  the  happiness  of  man.  The  "pursuit  of 
happiness"  may  be  an  "unalienable"  human  right, 
but  does  it  follow  that  another  nation  is  free  to  be 
happy  in  its  own  way  if  we  know  a  better  way? 

This  propaganda  of  Anglo-Saxon  supremacy  does 
not  seem  to  fall  in  with  the  program  of  The  Hague 
Peace  Conference;  and  we  can  hardly  hope  to  or 
ganize  an  international  court  that  will  allow  the  doc 
trine.  On  the  whole,  then,  might  it  not  be  better 
to  withdraw  this  program  of  Anglo-Saxon  para- 
mountcy?  The  nation  that  goes  out  to  slay  and  to 
possess  in  God's  name  must  give  some  other  attesta- 


24O  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

tion  of  its  mission  than  the  facts  that  it  is  the  might 
iest  of  the  nations  and  has  an  adaptable  language. 

The  men  upon  whom  the  tower  in  Siloam  fell 
were  not  sinners  above  all  men  in  Jerusalem;  and 
the  philosophy  of  the  islanders  among  whom  Paul 
fell — that  serpents  always  bite  the  worst  man  in  the 
company — was  very  quickly  upset.  Is  it  not  possi 
ble  that  the  philosophy  of  those  who  assign  God's 
special  approbation  to  the  prosperous  and  the  power 
ful  may  be  quite  as  faulty? 

His  intervention  is  more  apparent  when  weak 
things  confound  the  mighty.  It  is  not  safe  to  con 
clude  that  righteousness  and  the  heaviest  battalions 
are  necessarily  disassociated,  but  the  tendency  is  that 
way. 

Now,  it  happens  that  all  of  the  Central  and  South 
American  states  are  weak  states.  There  is  not  a 
harbor  so  defended  as  to  bar  the  entrance  of  a  squad 
ron  of  modern  battle  ships.  No  one  of  them  has  a 
navy  that  could  offer  the  briefest  resistance  on  the 
sea  to  any  one  of  the  great  European  powers. 
Practically,  if  each  stood  alone,  its  subjection  by 
any  one  of  the  great  powers  would  be  quite  within 
the  possibilities  of  a  great  military  effort.  If  the 
cabinets  of  the  four  great  powers  of  Europe  were 
to  combine  in  a  propaganda  of  colonization  in  this 
hemisphere,  as  they  did  in  Africa — using  the  new 
doctrine  of  "equivalents" — the  Spanish  American 
.states,  south  of  Mexico,  would,  unless  the  United 


MUSINGS    ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  241! 

States  gave  its  powerful  aid,  inevitably  pass  under 
European  control.  The  Central  and  South  Amer 
ican  states  have  retained  their  autonomy  only  be 
cause  the  United  States  would  neither  herself  in 
fringe  that  autonomy  nor  allow  other  nations  to  do 
so.  But  for  this,  British  Honduras  might  ere  this 
have  embraced  the  whole  isthmus,  British  Guiana 
have  included  the  Orinoco  and  Mexico  have  been 
subjected  to  the  rule  of  a  foreign  king. 

What  hinders  that  the  small  states  of  Europe  are 
not  taken  over  by  one  of  the  great  powers?  Is  it 
any  sense  of  the  inherent  right  of  these  lands  to  a 
separate  national  existence  or  of  their  princes  to 
their  crowns  ?  Such  sentimental  considerations  would 
offer  no  more  serious  obstacles  than  the  glistening 
spider  webs  in  the  grass  offer  to  the  feet  of  their 
marching  legions. 

These  small  states  stand,  out  of  deference  to  the 
European  equilibrium.  They  can  not  be  shifted  on 
the  lever  as  units  without  destroying  the  balance, 
and  Great  Britain  is  not  so  situated  as  to  make  use 
of  continental  territorial  fractions.  Her  "walls  of 
oak"  would  not  be  available  for  their  defense. 

What  a  grim  commentary  all  this  is  upon  our 
boasted  Christian  civilization,  upon  that  plaything  of 
the  diplomatists  and  the  tribunals,  international  law, 
and  upon  peace  conferences!  The  sheep  have  their 
security,  not  in  the  shepherd  or  in  the  fold,  but  in 
the  watchful  jealousy  of  the  wolves. 


242  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

The  fundamental  principle  of  international  law  is 
the  parity  of  nations.  Arbitration  is  the  special  re 
source  of  the  weak;  but  it  was  not  available  to  the 
Dutch  South  African  republics  and  was  only  avail 
able  to  Venezuela  because  of  the  intervention  of  the 
United  States. 

It  is  of  the  highest  consequence  to  us,  and  to  all 
of  the  Central  and  South  American  nations,  that  it 
should  be  known  to  them  and  to  the  world  that  the 
United  States  will  continue  faithfully  and  unswerv 
ingly  to  respect  the  autonomy  of  those  states;  that 
we  will  neither  ourselves  dismember  them  nor  suffer 
them  to  be  dismembered  by  any  European  power. 
If  the  Spanish  war,  or  this  talk  of  ruling  the  tropics 
from  the  temperate  zones,  or  of  Anglo-Saxon  alli 
ance  and  paramountcy,  has  bred  any  distrust  of  our 
purposes  toward  them,  it  should  be  speedily  dispelled. 
The  supposed  transformation,  from  an  American 
power  to  a  world  power,  in  the  sense  I  have  de 
scribed,  is  not  to  be  imputed  to  us.  Whatever  may 
be  in  the  minds  of  gaudy  rhetoricians,  we  have  not 
as  a  nation  entered  upon  a  program  of  colonization, 
or  of  subjugation,  or  spoliation.  We  have  not  joined 
the  wolves.  We  have  still  some  of  the  care-taking 
instinct  of  the  shepherd;  still,  at  least,  a  latent  ca 
pacity  for  sorrow  when  the  word  "free"  is  eliminated 
from  the  name  of  a  state. 

A  merchant  of  my  acquaintance  said  to  a  senti 
mental  friend,  who  was  troubled  over  the  proposi- 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  243 

tion  that  the  declaration  of  independence  and  the  bill 
of  rights  sections  of  the  constitution  had  no  relation 
to  Porto  Ricans,  but  applied  only  to  those  who  dwelt 
upon  the  mainland :  "The  people  care  nothing  about 
those  things;  it  is  money,  commerce,  that  interests 
them."  That  is  a  low  view  of  the  popular  thought. 

We  had  in  1776  a  generation  of  Americans  that 
placed  a  higher  value  upon  these  sentimental  things, 
and  pledged  to  them  their  "lives,  their  fortunes  and 
their  sacred  honor."  The  integrity  of  the  Union  was 
of  more  value  to  the  men  of  1861  than  all  lands 
and  all  lives. 

If  to  be  a  world  power  is  to  do  as  the  world  pow 
ers  do,  then  we  must  disclaim  this  new  degree  which 
the  European  College  of  Applied  Force  has  conferred 
upon  us.  The  taking  over  of  the  Philippines  has 
been  declared,  by  those  who  should  know,  to  have 
been  casual — of  necessity — the  acceptance  of  a  divinely 
imposed  duty.  The  question  of  the  disposition  of 
them,  when  their  people  shall  have  submitted  to 
legal  authority,  is  said  to  be  still  open.  All  of  which 
is  to  say  that  the  acquisition  of  these  distant  islands 
does  not  commit  the  nation  to  a  scheme  of  coloniza 
tion.  The  United  States  seems  thus  far  in  China 
to  have  stood  firmly  against  dismemberment;  not 
because  of  the  practical  difficulties  of  allotting^  the 
parts,  but  out  of  regard  to  the  rights  of  the  Chinese 
to  preserve  their  national  autonomy.  But  we  are 
hearing  now  a  great  deal  of  the  riches  and  the  stra- 


244  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

tegical  advantages  which  have  come  to  us  with  the 
docile  acceptance  of  the  divine  will  in  the  Philip 
pines,  and  a  great  deal  of  irresponsible  nonsense 
about  our  being  a  world  power.  If  we  allow  our 
selves  to  drift  into  bad  ways,  it  is  quite  the  same  as 
if  we  had  sought  them. 

The  barbarous  conduct  of  some  of  the  allied  forces 
in  China,  the  shameless  looting  of  private  houses  and 
public  institutions,  and  the  contemptuous  and  cruel 
disregard  of  all  the  sensibilities  and  rights  of  alien 
races  which  characterize  the  world  powers,  shock  our 
sensibilities.  We  have  almost  more  pride  in  General 
Chaffee's  blunt  letter  of  protest  against  looting  and 
cruelty  than  in  his  splendid  fighting.  Let  us  not  be 
a  world  power,  in  any  save  the  good  old  sense — 
that  of  a  nation  capable  of  protecting  in  all  seas  the 
just  rights  of  its  citizens,  and  incapable  everywhere 
of  a  wanton  infringement  of  the  autonomy  of  other 
nations. 


MUSINGS  ON  CURRENT  TOPICS 

Second  Paper 
North  American  Review,  March,  1901 

THE  BRITISH   ALLIANCE 

The  newspapers,  British  and  American,  were  much 
occupied  during  last  winter  with  a  supposed,  or 
proposed,  Anglo-American  alliance,  more  or  less 
formal  in  character.  We  know  that  no  such  con 
vention  was  signed,  and  no  evidence  has  been  pro 
duced  to  show  that  the  subject  was  even  informally 
discussed  by  the  representatives  of  the  respective  na 
tions.  Mr.  Chamberlain  was  premature  and  incau 
tious  in  giving  out  what  seemed  to  be  an  announce 
ment. 

Every  one  must  admit  that  a  close  friendship  be 
tween  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  is  quite 
desirable,  and  quite  in  the  course  of  nature.  How 
ever  complex  our  population  may  be  in  the  matter 
of  origin,  if  we  have  any  derived  national  type  it 
is  English.  This  predisposition  to  friendship,  how 
ever,  is  not  because  of  birth-ties  felt  by  our  genera- 

245 


246  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

tion.  These  tend,  perhaps,  more  strongly  in  other 
directions.  English  nativity,  as  a  direct  influence  in 
American  life,  is  now  comparatively  small.  But,  as 
a  remote  and  indirect  influence,  it  has  been  the  pre 
ponderating  element  in  the  evolution  of  the  Amer 
ican.  The  thirteen  colonies  were  English  colonies, 
not  only  in  their  governmental  relations,  but  in  fact. 
The  Scot  and  the  Irishman  and  the  Welshman,  for 
the  most  part,  made  their  salutations  to  the  new 
world  in  the  English  tongue.  They  came  as  English- 
speaking  people.  Their  accent  was,  at  home,  only 
an  unavailing  protest  against  absorption.  The  accent 
fell  away  here;  it  was  not  needed.  A  more  effective 
protest  against  English  political  domination  was 
found.  As  free  Americans,  they  had  no  quarrel  with 
the  English  tongue.  Whatever  has  come  since  to 
the  United  States  has  been  grafted  upon  the  old 
English  root.  The  fruit  has,  we  think,  been  im 
proved,  but  the  genus  is  still  that  of  the  old  root. 

The  Scot,  the  Irishman,  the  Welshman,  the  Ger 
man,  the  Frenchman,  the  Hollander,  the  Dane,  the 
Swede,  the  Norwegian,  has  each  brought  a  contri 
bution,  and  the  Italian  is  now  offering  one.  The 
American  is  a  give-and-take  product.  But  "thy 
speech  bewrayeth  thee" — and  our  speech  is  wholly, 
and  our  derived  institutions  are  chiefly,  English.  We 
have  pride  in  the  great  poets,  philosophers,  jurists, 
historians  and  story-writers  who  have  used  the  tongue 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  247 

we  use,  and  we  are  grateful  to  them.  It  is  a  personal 
<lebt. 

We  have  fellowship  with  the  stout  Britons  who 
sheared  the  prerogatives  of  the  king,  and  with  the 
martyrs  who  died  for  freedom  of  worship.  We  are 
grateful  to  them,  not  to  the  government  that  perse 
cuted  them.  But  is  it  logical  to  derive  from  such 
considerations  the  deduction  that  our  sympathies  must 
be  given  to  every  British  ministry  that  inaugurates 
a  war,  without  reference  to  its  origin  or  its  justice? 
We  did  not  take  English  literature  or  English  law 
by  voluntary  conveyance,  upon  a  consideration  of 
love  and  affection.  Will  not  the  argument  for  a 
friendly  spirit  toward  Great  Britain  be  stronger,  if 
the  plea  of  gratitude  is  made  less  of?  For  grati 
tude  takes  account,  not  of  one  incident,  but  of  all; 
and  the  average  between  1774  and  1898  had  better 
not  be  struck.  There  may  be  found  more  things 
that  it  would  be  pleasant  to  forget  than  to  remember ! 

Prior  to  the  Spanish-American  war,  can  the  his 
torian  find,  in  British-American  diplomatic  inter 
course,  an  instance  where  friendship  for  the  United 
States  led  to  any  substantial  abatement  of  British 
pretensions,  or  to  a  sympathetic  attitude  toward  us 
in  the  times  of  our  stress  and  agony,  or  even  to  the 
use  of  any  special  consideration  in  presenting  a  de 
mand  for  redress?  The  demand  for  the  release  of 
Mason  and  Slidell  was  couched  in  very  harsh  and 
peremptory  terms.  And  it  is  understood  that,  but 


248  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

for  the  kindly  intervention  of  the  queen,  an  abase-, 
ment  would  have  been  put  upon  us  that  we  could 
only  have  accepted  with  a  time  reservation — until 
our  fleets  and  armies  had  finished  the  work  in  hand. 

The  attitude  of  the  British  government  toward  us 
during  our  civil  war  was  hostile  and  hurtful.  Its 
unfriendliness  only  stopped  short  of  an  open  alli 
ance  with  the  Southern  Confederacy.  Neither  kin 
ship  nor  a  history  of  ostentatious  reprobation  of  slav 
ery  was  enough  to  overbalance  the  commercial  ad 
vantage  to  be  derived  from  trade  with  a  non-manu 
facturing,  cotton-raising  nation.  The  threatening  at 
titude  of  Great  Britain  was  no  small  part  of  the 
breaking  burden  that  weighted  the  shoulders  of  Abra 
ham  Lincoln.  Only  the  Lancashire  spinners — God 
bless  them  to  the  latest  generation! — showed  an  em 
bodied  friendship;  though  there  were  notable  spo 
radic  cases. 

Is  it  quite  logical  to  use  the  recent  display  of 
friendliness  by  Great  Britain  as  a  sponge  with  which 
to  wipe  from  the  tablets  of  memory  the  decisive  in 
tervention  of  France  during  the  revolution,  and  the 
helpful  friendliness  of  Russia  during  the  civil  war? 
Or  should  the  sponge  only  be  used  to  efface  any 
rancorous  memory  of  old  manifestations  of  unfriend 
liness  by  Great  Britain  toward  us,  or  by  us  toward 
her,  and  to  give  us  a  clean  slate  upon  which  may 
be  recorded  an  unbroken  future  of  kindliness  and 
good  will? 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  249 

Washington  did  not  allow  gratitude  to  France,  for 
an  armed  and  saving  intervention  in  our  behalf,  to 
be  used  as  the  basis  of  an  alliance  that  would  bring 
us  into  European  entanglements;  and  can  we  now 
allow  the  friendly  non-intervention  of  Great  Britain 
during  the  Spanish  war — which  involved  no  cost  to 
her — to  be  so  used?  The  French  demands  upon  our 
gratitude  were  thought  to  be  excessive,  though  they 
did  not  insist  upon  a  permanent  naval  base  in  New 
York  harbor! 

Are  not  the  continuous  good  and  close  relations 
of  the  two  great  English-speaking  nations — for  which 
I  pray — rather  imperilled  than  promoted  by  this  fool 
ish  talk  of  gratitude  and  of  an  alliance,  which  is  often 
made  to  take  on  the  appearance  of  a  threat,  or  at 
least  a  prophecy,  of  an  Anglo-Saxon  "paramount cy?" 

The  prophetic  role,  also,  is  being  overworked. 
There  is  no  emotion  so  susceptible  to  overwork  as 
gratitude,  and  no  role  so  silly  as  that  of  a  prophet 
without  an  attestation.  Is  it  not  wholly  illogical  to 
argue  that,  because  the  British  ministry,  and,  to  a 
considerable  degree,  the  British  people,  gave  their 
sympathy  to  us  during  the  Spanish  war,  an  Amer 
ican  administration  and  the  American  people  must 
give  their  sympathy  to  the  British  in  the  Boer  war? 
The  major  premise  is  wanting — namely,  that  the  two 
wars  are  of  the  same  quality.  The  argument  we 
hear  so  much  takes  no  account  of  this  element;  yet 
it  is  necessary,  to  save  the  deduction,  that  both  wars 


25O  VIEWS    OF    AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

should  be  just  or  that  both  should  be  unjust.  There 
are  evidences,  however,  that  this  reasoning  is  accepted 
by  many  intelligent  persons.  I  say  "reasoning." 
Perhaps  that  is  not  a  good  word.  It  certainly  is 
not  unless  we  start  with  this  major  premise — "Both 
wars  were  righteous  wars;"  or  this — "Both  wars 
were  aggressive,  for  dominion."  If  our  Spanish 
war  was  waged  to  liberate  an  oppressed  people,  and 
the  British-Boer  war  is  waged  to  subjugate  a  free 
people,  does  not  the  "reasoning"  fail?  For,  to  say 
that  we  must  stand  by  Great  Britain  in  the  wrong 
because  she  stood  by  us  in  the  right  is  not  reason 
ing — it  is  the  camaraderie  of  brigands.  It  must  be 
admitted,  however,  that,  should  we  present  a  claim 
of  "suzerainty"  or  "paramountcy"  over  Cuba,  a  sim 
ilitude  to  the  South  African  situation  might  be  found. 

Is  not  the  sympathy  of  Great  Britain  robbed  of  all 
moral  quality,  if  we  allow  that  it  had  its  origin  in 
any  other  consideration  than  a  belief  in  the  justice 
of  our  cause?  It  is  to  disparage  the  nation  whose 
virtues  and  civilization  we  affect  to  honor,  to  say 
that  Great  Britain  stood  by  us  in  a  war  that  her 
conscience  did  not  approve;  that  she  kept  off  the 
police,  while  we  effected  a  robbery.  And  the  depths 
of  moral  darkness  are  sounded  when  it  is  suggested 
that  we  are  to  make  return  in  kind. 

Does  not  a  flood  of  gush  and  unreason  rather 
thwart  than  promote  a  good  understanding?  There 
will  be  an  ebb.  Neither  the  British  people  nor  the 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  251 

American  people  will  surrender  their  right  of  free 
judgment  and  criticism  of  the  acts  of  their  own  gov 
ernment,  much  less  of  the  acts  and  policies  of  the 
other.  Surely,  every  American  speaker  and  writer 
is  not  now  perforce  either  a  supporter  of  Mr.  Cham 
berlain's  aggressive  colonial  policies,  or  an  ingrate. 
Our  freedom  of  judgment  and  criticism  is  surely  not 
smaller  than  that  of  a  Liberal  member  of  Parlia 
ment.  Government  in  Great  Britain,  even  more  than 
in  the  United  States,  is  by  party,  and  the  control 
shifts.  Is  it  not  too  hard  a  test  of  friendliness  to 
say  that  each  must  shift  its  sympathies  when  the 
majority  in  the  other  shifts? 

A  quid  pro  quo  friendship  between  nations  had 
some  promise  of  permanency,  and  some  value,  in 
the  days  when  kings  were  rulers  and  there  was  an 
anointed  line.  But,  in  these  days,  must  not  an  in 
ternational  friendship,  to  have  value,  unite  two  peo 
ples?  Ministries  and  presidents  are  shifting  quan 
tities.  A  friendship  that  comes  in  with  a  ministry 
or  a  president  may  go  out  with  it  or  him.  Only  a 
union  of  the  two  peoples  is  worthy  of  a  statesman's 
thought;  and  not  incidents  of  friendliness,  but  an 
agreement  in  matters  of  principle,  in  general  gov* 
ernmental  purposes,  is  needed  for  that. 

We  take  our  friends  on  the  average,  as  they  must 
take  us.  If  the  liberty  to  differ  is  not  reserved,  I 
am  not  a  friend,  but  a  toady.  A  man  who  is  capable 
of  a  high  friendship  will  not  mention  the  favor  he 


252  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

did  you  last  week,  when  he  solicits  your  help.  Lend 
ing  to  those  from  whom  you  expect  to  receive  as 
much  again,  is  not  friendship,  but  commerce.  If 
friendship  is  put  upon  that  basis,  it  becomes  open  to 
bids;  and  account  must  be  taken  of  the  extremity 
when  aid  was  given  or  withheld. 

I  think  the  great  weight  of  opinion  among  the 
English  Liberals  was  that  the  war  with  the  Dutch 
republics  could  have  been,  and  ought  to  have  been, 
avoided.  Many  of  them  believe  that  this  war  is 
only  a  supplement  of  the  Jameson  raid.  Surely  an 
American  may  hold  these  opinions  without  subject 
ing  himself  to  the  charge  that  he  is  a  hater  of  Great 
Britain.  Nor  can  the  repression  which  the  British 
Liberals  have  imposed  upon  themselves,  pending  the 
war,  be  exacted  of  Americans.  Nations  can  only  be 
reached  by  process  from  two  tribunals — war  and  pub 
lic  opinion.  The  arbitral  tribunal  has  no  process; 
it  assembles  upon  a  stipulation.  The  tribunal  of 
public  opinion,  on  the  other  hand,  is  always  in  ses 
sion,  and  must  give  a  judgment  upon  all  acts  of 
men  and  nations  that  affect  the  public  welfare.  It 
would  aid  the  tribunal  greatly  if  each  of  the  com 
batants  could  be  compelled  to  plead,  to  declare  the 
cause  of  the  war  and  its  objects. 

The  continental  congress  of  1776  allowed  the  juris 
diction  of  this  great  court.  "A  decent  respect/'  it 
said,  "for  the  opinions  of  mankind  requires  that  they 
should  declare  the  causes  which  impel  them  to  the 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  253 

separation."  The  object  of  the  war  was  stated  with 
equal  explicitness :  "That  these  United  Colonies  are 
and  of  right  ought  to  be  free  and  independent  states." 

In  our  second  war  with  Great  Britain,  the  mes 
sages  of  President  Madison  and  the  resolutions  of 
congress  distinctly  catalogue  the  causes  of  the  war 
and  disclose  its  objects,  and  in  our  civil  war  the 
issue  was  so  clear  that  neither  malice  nor  sophistry 
has  been  able  to  confuse  it.  Mr.  Lincoln  consciously 
and  willingly  submitted  the  cause  to  "the  considerate 
judgment  of  mankind." 

In  the  recent  Spanish  war,  congress  declared  not 
only  the  cause  of  the  war,  but  put  the  United  States 
under  bond  to  conduct  and  conclude  it  as  a  war  for 
the  liberation  of  Cuba. 

There  is  no  influence  for  peace  so  strong  (would 
it  were  freer  and  stronger!)  as  the  fear  of  the  en 
lightened  judgment  of  mankind.  And  this  must 
put  those  who  influence  that  judgment  upon  the  ex 
ercise  of  a  judicial  independence  and  impartiality. 
These  judgments  must  not  be  made  matters  of  ex 
change.  Is  it  not  bad  morals,  as  well  as  illogical, 
to  say:  "We  were  recently  at  the  bar  of  public 
opinion,  and  Great  Britain,  as  one  of  the  judges, 
stood  by  us;  now  she  is  at  the  bar,  and  we  must 
stand  by  her"? 

There  are  no  two  countries  in  the  world  where 
thought  and  conscience  and  speech,  the  elements  and 
the  organ  of  a  sound  public  opinion,  are  so  free  or 


254  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

so  powerful  as  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States.  And  no  friendship  between  the  nations,  that 
does  not  take  account  of  and  allow  these,  is  a  worthy 
one,  or  can  have  endurance.  In  the  case  of  one's 
own  country,  there  has  been  opportunity  to  influ 
ence  public  policies,  and  if  they  have  gone  wrong 
there  will  be  an  opportunity  to  set  them  right;  while, 
in  the  case  of  another  nation,  we  are  without  oppor 
tunity. 

Is  not  the  inevitable  tendency  of  any  attempt  to 
put  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  in  the  re 
lation  of  allies,  to  raise  up  and  to  strengthen  an 
anti-British  party  in  the  United  States  and  an  anti- 
American  party  in  Great  Britain?  Buried  injuries 
and  grudges  are  dug  up  and  exploited  for  a  domes 
tic  party  advantage.  There  are  forces  that  become 
destructive  if  they  are  pent;  and,  in  this  regard, 
opinions  and  gunpowder  are  in  the  same  class.  If 
a  friendship  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States,  that  will  make  their  immediate  relations  cor 
dial  and  unite  their  influence  for  peace  and  human 
progress,  is  to  be  maintained — to  become  a  status — 
must  it  not  be  laid  down  on  a  moral  instead  of  a 
commercial  basis?  Morals  abide;  commercial  inter 
ests  shift.  It  must  not  involve  enmity  to  the  world, 
or  exact  an  approval  by  the  one  of  every  public  act 
of  the  other.  It  must  not  be  put  upon  grounds  too 
tenuously  sentimental,  nor  must  the  quid  pro  quo 
argument  be  too  much  pressed.  It  must  be  of  a  sort 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  25$ 

that  tolerates  differences  of  opinions  and  endures  the 
smart  of  criticism.  The  newspapers  must  not  be 
taken  too  seriously.  The  friendship  must  not  be  of 
a  party  here  with  a  party  there.  Upon  that  basis  we 
shall  have  racking  alternations  of  gush  and  coldness. 

If  the  nations  are  to  be  friends,  if  they  are  to  live 
together  in  amity  and  work  together  in  their  for 
eign  policies,  must  it  not  be  upon  a  basis  that  does 
not  repel  but  invites  the  participation  of  all  other 
nations  in  every  project  for  the  development  and 
peace  of  the  world — and  not  upon  the  pernicious 
and  futile  project  of  an  Anglo-Saxon  world?  The 
moral  quality  of  public  acts  must  be  taken  account 
of;  greed  of  territory  and  thoughts  of  political  para- 
mountcies  enforced  by  the  sword  must  be  eliminated. 

Great  Britain  has  pursued  aggressively  a  policy  of 
territorial  expansion,  in  which  the  consent  of  the 
peoples  taken  over  has  not  been  taken  account  of, 
as  having  any  application,  until  after  British  sover 
eignty  was  established.  If  the  Dutch  will  forego  all 
thoughts  of  a  lost  republic  and  become  loyal  sub 
jects  of  Great  Britain,  she  will  give  back  to  them  a 
pretty  large  liberty  in  local  affairs,  and  take  a  very 
large  credit  for  her  generosity.  She  has  not  re 
garded  the  forcible  annexation  of  territory  as  at  all 
culpable. 

Is  the  friendly  co-operation  of  the  two  nations  to 
be  rested  upon  the  abandonment  or  modification  of 
her  traditional  policy,  or  upon  the  abandonment  of 


256  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

ours?  In  the  prosecution  of  the  "open  door"  policy 
— that  is,  equal  commercial  privileges  to  all  nations 
— we  have,  perhaps,  found  a  common  basis  of  diplo 
matic  action.  To  us  this  means,  I  still  think,  the 
recognition  of  the  autonomy  of  weak  nations  and 
their  right  to  regulate  their  own  internal  affairs,  as 
opposed  to  dismemberment  or  the  paramountcy  of 
one  of  the  great  powers.  Does  Great  Britain  accept 
the  "open  door"  policy  in  that  sense?  And  is  it  with 
her  a  world  or  only  a  Chinese  policy  ?  Are  we  agreed 
that  the  seizure  or  dismemberment  of  a  weak  state 
by  a  stronger  is  wrong,  or  only  that,  in  the  case  of 
China,  an  agreed  partition  would  be  difficult,  or 
that  it  might  be  less  advantageous? 

Is  it  not  possible  that,  if  suitably  urged,  Great 
Britain  might  come  to  stand  with  us  against  the 
forcible  absorption  of  weak  states  and  for  open  doors 
everywhere?  She  has  lost  her  monopoly  of  expan 
sion.  She  has  found  that  her  most  loyal  colonies 
buy  in  the  best  market.  The  people  of  the  Trans 
vaal  and  of  the  Orange  Free  State  will  not  show 
favor  to  a  British  trade-mark.  The  increased  cost 
and  competition  in  the  business  of  expansion  are  sug 
gestive. 

The  American  people  gave  generously  of  their  love 
to  Queen  Victoria.  Her  death  was  felt  here  to  be 
a  family  sorrow.  She  was  not  associated  in  the 
American  mind  with  those  aggressive  features  of 
the  British  character  and  foreign  policy  that  other 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT  TOPICS  257 

nations  have  so  much  resented.  The  American  love 
for  her  as  a  queen  was  largely  based  upon  the  be 
lief  that  her  influence  was  used,  as  far  as  it  might 
be,  to  ameliorate  aggression  and  to  promote  peace. 
The  qualities  we  most  admired  in  her  were  those 
in  which  she  was  most  unlike  some  British  states 
men,  whose  names  my  readers  are  left  to  catalogue. 
The  universal  sorrow  and  sympathy  which  the  death 
of  the  queen  evoked  in  this  country  have  largely  con 
founded  and  silenced  those  who  have  been  saying 
that  America  hated  Great  Britain.  It  is  not  so.  But 
will  it  not  be  wise  to  allow  the  friendship  between 
the  nations  to  rest  upon  deep  and  permanent  things, 
and  to  allow  dissent  and  criticism  as  to  transient 
things?  Irritations  of  the  cuticle  must  not  be  con 
founded  with  heart  failure. 

THE   BOER   WAR 

It  is  quite  possible  that  the  government  of  a  state 
may  so  flagrantly  abuse  its  internal  powers,  may  so 
cruelly  treat  its  subjects,  or  a  class  of  them,  that  the 
intervention  of  other  states  will  be  justified.  It  is 
an  extreme  case  that  will  justify  an  armed  interven 
tion,  and  the  intervention  must  always  be  benevolent, 
both  in  spirit  and  purpose.  The  police  must  not  ap 
propriate  the  property  they  recover  from  the  high 
wayman.  The  judgment  whether  the  case  is  one 
that  justifies  intervention  must  not  be  influenced,  or 
seem  to  be  influenced,  by  motives  of  advantage.  If 


258  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

the  land  delivered  is  taken  over,  those  who  reject 
altogether  the  idea  of  an  international  benevolence 
or  altruism  will  have  another  citation. 

The  insistence  of  many  individuals  and  of  a  very 
large  section  of  the  newspaper  press  that,  as  matter 
of  "reciprocity,"  we  must  give  our  sympathy  to  Great 
Britain  in  the  Boer  war,  and  the  frequent  refer 
ences  to  certain  crude  and  illiberal  things  in  the 
Dutch  administration  of  the  Transvaal  as  matters 
justifying  an  armed  intervention  by  Great  Britain, 
have  very  naturally  turned  my  vagrant  thoughts  to 
the  consideration  of  the  question,  whether  these  al 
leged  faults  in  the  internal  administration  of  the  Boers 
furnished  a  justification  for  the  war  made  by  Great 
Britain  upon  the  Boers.  I  put  it  that  way,  though  I 
am  not  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the  official  view  in 
Great  Britain  is  that  the  Boers  began  the  war,  and 
that  this  view  is  adopted  by  the  "reciprocity"  school 
of  Americans.  Is  it  not  possible,  however,  that  the 
Texas  view  of  the  matter  is  more  nearly  the  right 
one?  In  Texas,  when  one  of  the  parties  to  an  acri 
monious,  oral  discussion  announces  that  the  discus 
sion  is  ended  and  that  he  will  now  take  such  meas 
ures  as  seem  to  him  to  be  more  effective,  and  accom 
panies  this  declaration  by  a  movement  of  his  right 
hand  in  the  direction  of  his  hip  pocket,  he  is  accounted 
to  have  begun  the  war.  If  the  other  gets  out  his 
weapon  first  and  kills  the  gentleman  whose  hand  is 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  259 

moving  toward  his  hip  pocket,  it  is,  not  only  in  the 
popular  judgment,  but  in  law,  self-defense. 

The  Boers  did  not  seek  war  with  Great  Britain. 
They  retreated  to  the  wall.  Like  the  Pilgrims  of 
Plymouth  Rock,  they  did  not  seek,  in  the  great  trek 
of  1835,  an  Eldorado,  but  barrenness  and  remote 
ness — a  region  which,  as  Mr.  Prentiss  said,  "would 
hold  out  no  temptation  to  cupidity,  no  inducement 
to  persecution." 

The  Pilgrims  found,  but  the  Boers  missed,  their 
quest.  What  seemed  a  barren  veldt,  on  which  free 
men  might  live  unmolested,  was  but  the  lid  of  a  vast 
treasure-box.  Riches  are  the  destruction  of  the  weak. 
"When  a  strong  man  armed  keepeth  his  palace,  his 
goods  are  in  peace."  But  strong  is  in  the  positive; 
and  this  scripture  tells  us  what  happens  when  a 
stronger  shall  "come  upon  him." 

Taking  the  case  there,  however,  as  one  of  British 
armed  intervention  for  the  correction  of  certain  al 
leged  evils  and  oppressions  of  Transvaal  internal  ad 
ministration,  what  has  international  law  to  say  about 
it?  But  is  there  an  international  law?  The  nations 
have  never  subscribed  any  codification.  There  are  com 
mentators,  but  there  is  no  statute  book.  There  are  con 
ventions  between  two  or  more  states,  which,  in  a  few 
specified  particulars,  regulate  rights  and  conduct. 
There  are  the  moral  law,  the  decalogue,  the  law  of 
nature;  but  does  the  "thou"  of  these  address  itself 


260  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

to  states?  There  are  precedents,  but  is  the  nation 
that  made  them  bound  by  them,  if  her  interest  has 
shifted  ?  Does  the  admiral  of  the  strongest  fleet  write 
the  law  of  the  sea,  not  only  for  his  antagonist,  but 
for  all  neutrals?  Is  there  a  standard  of  personal 
cleanliness  and  domestic  sanitation  that  is  determin 
ative  of  the  right  of  self-government?  Has  a  strong 
power  the  right  to  appoint  itself  a  "trustee  for  hu 
manity,"  and  in  that  character  to  take  over  the  lands 
of  such  weak  nations  as  fail  to  make  the  best  use 
of  them?  Is  the  rule  that  the  trustee  can  not  take 
a  profit  inapplicable  to  "trustees  for  humanity"? 
Does  a  well-grounded  fear  that  another  nation  is 
about  to  appropriate  territory  to  which  neither  it  nor 
we  have  any  rightful  claim,  justify  us  in  grabbing 
it  first,  or  in  making  an  equivalent  seizure  in  some 
other  part  of  the  world?  Have  we  come,  in  prac 
tice,  to  the  view  which  Phillimore  puts  into  the  mouth 
of  those  who  say  there  is  no  international  law: 

"The  proposition  that  in  their  mutual  intercourse 
states  are  bound  to  recognize  the  eternal  obligations 
of  justice,  apart  from  considerations  of  immediate 
expediency,  they  deem  stupid  and  ridiculous  pedantry. 
They  point  triumphantly  to  the  instances  in  which 
the  law  has  been  broken,  in  which  might  has  been 
substituted  for  right,  and  ask  if  providence  is  not 
always  on  the  side  of  the  strongest  battalions.  Let 
our  strength,  they  say,  be  the  law  of  justice,  for  that 
which  is  feeble  is  found  to  be  nothing  worth." 


MUSINGS  ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  26 1 

That  choleric  Virginia  statesman,  John  Randolph, 
in  1800,  when  the  subject  of  Great  Britain's  infrac 
tions  of  our  neutral  rights  upon  the  sea  was  under 
discussion,  gave  voice  to  the  same  thought.  "What 
is  national  law,"  he  said,  "but  national  power  guided 
by  national  interest?"  And  a  recent  Chinese  writer 
says :  "International  law  is  a  set  of  precepts  laid 
down  by  strong  powers  to  be  enforced  on  weak  ones." 

Many  questions  relating  to  natural  rights  are  now 
regarded  as  outside  the  domain  of  practical  states 
manship.  Has  the  American  view  changed?  When 
we  were  feeble,  questions  that  are  now  rather  sneer- 
ingly  called  "academic"  were  very  practical,  and  the 
aspirations  and  sympathies  that  are  now  called  "sen 
timental"  were  the  breath  of  American  life.  Our 
diplomacy  was  sentimental ;  it  had  a  regard  for  weak 
ness,  for  we  had  not  forgotten  our  own.  Never 
did  we  fail  to  let  it  be  known  that  our  people  sym 
pathized  with  every  effort,  every  aspiration,  of  any 
civilized  people  to  set  up  or  to  defend  republican  in 
stitutions. 

The  British  intervention  in  South  Africa  was  not 
a  response  to  any  appeal  from  so  much  as  a  frag 
ment  of  the  Boer  people.  They  were  not  only  con 
tent  with  the  government  they  had  instituted,  but 
passionately  devoted  to  it — with  a  readiness  to  die 
in  its  defense  that  took  no  account  of  age  or  sex. 
No  Boer  in  the  Transvaal  desired  to  become  a  British 
subject;  but  very  many  British  subjects  in  the  Cape 


262  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

Colony  were  so  unappreciative  of  the  advantages  of 
their  condition  as  such  that  they  passionately  desired 
to  throw  it  off  for  a  citizenship  in  a  Dutch  republic. 
In  other  words,  the  men  who  were  discontented  and 
rebellious  were  not  the  citizens  of  the  Transvaal  or 
of  the  Orange  Free  State,  but  those  men  of  Dutch 
descent  whose  grandfathers  had  by  conquest  become 
British  subjects. 

The  political  conditions  in  Cuba,  when  we  inter 
vened,  were  the  very  opposite  of  those  in  the  Trans 
vaal.  Our  intervention  was  in  behalf  of  the  Cubans. 
We  co-operated  to  free  them  from  the  power  of  a 
government  whose  oppressions  and  cruelties  had  many 
times  before  driven  them  into  rebellion. 

Great  Britain's  intervention  in  South  Africa  was 
against  a  united  people,  living  in  content — an  ignorant 
content,  if  you  please — under  a  government  of  their 
own  construction;  and  the  ground  of  the  interven 
tion  was  ostensibly  the  interests  of  British  subjects 
sojourning  there. 

Many  defects,  incongruities  and  crudities  in  the 
Boer  government  and  administration  have  been  point 
ed  out  by  the  newspapers  and  other  writers  of  Great 
Britain,  and  these  have  been  faithfully  echoed  by 
not  a  few  Americans,  and  by  not  a  few  American 
newspapers.  Now,  these  faults  in  Boer  administra 
tion,  in  the  main,  were  such  as  affected  only  the 
Boers  themselves,  and  were  not  infractions  of  the  in 
ternational  rights  of  aliens.  The  use  made  of  them 


MUSINGS   ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  263 

was  not,  openly,  as  a  justification  of  the  war,  but 
rather  as  a  check  upon  the  sympathy  of  the  Amer 
ican  people,  which,  it  was  feared,  might,  as  it  has 
been  in  the  habit  of  doing,  go  over-strongly  to  the 
side  of  a  republic  fighting  for  its  existence.  It  was 
to  say:  "Don't  make  too  much  fuss  over  the  death 
of  the  man,  or  too  strict  an  inquiry  into  the  cause  of 
the  quarrel;  he  was  not  in  all  respects  an  exemplary 
citizen."  The  Boers  were  said  to  have  been  favor 
able  to  slavery  as  an  institution,  and  to  bear  a  grudge 
against  the  British  because  they  abolished  it.  Now, 
the  American,  whose  country,  until  very  recently,  was 
the  great  slave-holding  nation  of  the  world,  and  the 
Briton,  who  gave  his  sympathy,  and  much  material 
help  besides,  to  the  states  that  sought  by  the  de 
struction  of  the  American  Union  to  make  slavery 
perpetual — surely  these  can  not  be  expected  to  respect 
the  autonomy  or  mourn  the  demise  of  a  republic  that 
is  suspected  of  having  had  in  the  past  a  desire  to 
hold  slaves! 

These  Boers  are  not  our  kind  of  people;  they  are 
not  polished;  they  neglect  the  bath;  they  are  rude 
and  primitive;  their  government  is  patriarchal  and, 
in  some  things,  arbitrary.  To  be  sure,  they  like  these 
habits  and  these  institutions;  they  abandoned  old 
homes,  and  made  new  homes  in  the  wilderness,  that 
they  might  enjoy  them;  but  the  homes  are  not  such 
as  we  should  have  made ;  the  Anglo-Saxon  model  has 
not  been  nicely  followed.  You  have  the  "consent  of 


264  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT. 

the  governed" — yes;  but  Great  Britain  does  not  ap 
prove  of  you,  and  she  stood  by  us  in  the  Spanish 
war. 

That  any  self-respecting  government,  which  was 
strong  enough  to  make  its  diplomatic  notes  express 
its  true  emotions,  would  have  answered  Great  Britain's 
complaints  by  a  flat  refusal  to  discuss  them,  on  the 
ground  that  they  related  to  matters  of  internal  ad 
ministration;  that  such  would  have  been  the  answer 
of  the  United  States,  if  we  had  stood  in  the  place 
of  the  Transvaal  republic,  can  not  be  doubted — and 
there  is  no  more  room  for  doubt  that  the  answer 
would  have  terminated  the  discussion. 

If  the  subject  of  naturalization  is  not  a  matter 
to  be  determined  by  a  nation  for  itself,  and  solely 
upon  a  consideration  of  its  own  interests  and  safety, 
there  is  no  subject  that  is  free  from  the  meddlesome 
intervention  of  other  states. 

And  as  to  the  government  monopoly  of  the  dyna 
mite  trade,  the  practice  of  European  governments 
has  certainly  placed  that  question  in  the  schedule  of 
internal  affairs,  resting,  in  the  judgment  of  each 
nation,  upon  a  view  of  its  own  interests,  unless  it  has 
by  treaty  limited  its  control  of  the  matter. 

The  idea  of  a  war  waged  to  enforce,  as  an  inter 
national  right,  the  privilege  of  British  subjects  to  re 
nounce  their  allegiance  to  the  queen,  and  to  assume 
a  condition  in  which  they  might  be  obliged  to  take 
up  arms  against  her,  would  be  a  taking  theme  for  a 


MUSINGS   ON   CURRENT   TOPICS  265 

comic  opera.  And  the  interest  and  amusement  would 
be  greatly  promoted  if  the  composer  should,  in  the 
opening  act,  introduce  the  "Ruler  of  the  Queen's 
Navy"  overhauling  an  American  merchantman  in 
1812,  and  dragging  from  her  decks  men  who  had  re 
nounced  their  allegiance  to  Great  Britain  to  become 
American  citizens,  to  man  the  guns  of  British  war 
ships  ! 

"If  he  produced  naturalization  papers,"  says  Mc- 
Master,  "from  the  country  under  whose  flag  he  sailed, 
he  was  told  that  England  did  not  admit  the  right 
of  expatriation." 

But,  in  those  days,  the  "renunciation"  was  sincere 
and  final.  The  men  who  made  it  meant  it — meant 
to  fight  the  king  of  Great  Britain,  if  war  came.  Did 
these  Transvaal  Britons,  who  were  seeking  Boer  nat 
uralization,  mean  that?  Did  Mr.  Chamberlain  sup 
pose  that  he  was  turning  over  to  Mr.  Kruger  a  body 
of  Englishmen  skilled  in  engineering  and  the  use 
of  explosives,  upon  whose  loyalty  to  the  Boer  cause 
Mr.  Kruger  could  rely?  The  climax  of  the  fun  will 
be  reached  when  the  opera  composer  offers  this  situ 
ation.  Most  of  these  men  whose  naturalization  was 
to  be  forced  upon  the  Boers  were  actively  and  ag 
gressively  hostile  to  the  Boer  government.  No  safe 
occasion  to  show  this  hostility  was  missed. 

In  a  recent  book,  Mrs.  Lionel  Phillips,  the  wife 
of  one  of  the  Englishmen  condemned  to  death  for 
their  connection  with  the  Jameson  raid,  tells  of  an 


266  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

incident  that  occurred  at  Pretoria  before  the  raid. 
A  British  Commissioner,  Sir  Henry  Loch,  came  to 
Pretoria  to  discuss  with  President  Kriiger  some  Brit 
ish  grievances.  Mr.  Kriiger  drove  in  his  carriage  to 
receive  the  Commissioner  and  take  him  to  his  hotel. 
Mrs.  Phillips  says: 

"There  was  a  scene  of  the  wildest  enthusiasm,  thou 
sands  being  there  to  welcome  the  queen's  representa 
tive,  and  when  he  and  Kriiger  got  into  the  carriage 
(which  also  contained  Dr.  Leyds)  to  proceed  to  the 
hotel,  some  Englishmen  took  out  the  horses  and 
dragged  it,  one  irresponsible  person  jumping  on  the 
box-seat  and  waving  a  Union  Jack  over  Kriiger 's 
head!  When  the  carriage  arrived  at  its  destination, 
Sir  Henry,  accompanied  by  Dr.  Leyds,  entered  the 
hotel,  and  the  president  was  left  sitting  in  the  horse 
less  carriage.  The  yelling  crowd  refused  to  drag  the 
vehicle,  and,  after  some  difficulty,  a  few  of  his  faith 
ful  burghers  were  got  together  to  drag  the  irate 
president  to  his  home." 

Now,  it  was  for  these  thousands  of  Englishmen, 
who  practiced  this  dastardly  indignity  upon  Presi 
dent  Kriiger,  and  who,  with  others,  a  little  later  made 
or  promoted  the  Jameson  raid,  that  Boer  naturaliza 
tion  was  demanded. 

But  it  has  been  stated,  upon  apparently  excellent 
authority,  that  the  British  Commission  expressly  re 
jected  a  form  of  naturalization  oath  that  contained, 
as  our  form  does,  a  renunciation  of  allegiance  to  all 


MUSINGS  ON    CURRENT   TOPICS  267 

other  governments.  If,  upon  the  basis  of  a  retained 
British  allegiance,  suffrage,  whether  in  local  or  gen 
eral  affairs,  was  demanded  for  the  Outlanders,  the 
comic  aspect  of  the  situation  disappears ;  the  unreason 
is  too  great  for  comedy. 

Great  Britain  can  not,  we  are  told,  safely  give  local 
government  to  the  Boers  when  she  shall  have  sub 
jugated  them,  because  she  can  not  trust  their  loyalty 
to  the  crown;  but  she  is  seeking  to  destroy  the  re 
publics,  because  the  Transvaal  refused  suffrage  and 
local  control  to  Englishmen  who  had  attempted  by 
arms  to  overthrow  the  Boer  government,  and  who 
sought  suffrage  for  the  same  end.  Suffrage  was  only 
another  form  of  assault  in  the  interest  of  British 
domination. 

Not  long  ago,  a  distinguished  Briton  (Goldwin 
Smith)  is  reported  to  have  said: 

"Can  history  show  a  more  memorable  fight  for 
independence  than  that  which  is  being  made  by  the 
Boer?  Does  it  yield  to  that  made  by  Switzerland 
against  Austria  and  Burgundy;  or  to  that  made  by 
the  Tyrolese  under  Hofer?  The  Boer  gets  no  pay; 
no  comforts  and  luxuries  are  provided  for  him  by 
fashionable  society;  he  can  look  forward  to  no  med 
als  or  pensions;  he  voluntarily  endures  the  utmost 
hardships  of  war;  his  discipline,  though  unforced, 
seems  never  to  fail.  Boys  of  sixteen,  a  correspond 
ent  at  the  Cape  tells  me — even  of  fourteen — take  the 
rifle  from  the  hand  of  the  mother  who  remains  to 


268  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

pray  for  them  in  her  lonely  home,  and  stand  by  their 
grandsires  to  face  the  murderous  artillery  of  mod 
ern  war.  *  *  *  Rude,  narrow-minded,  fanatical 
in  their  religion,  these  men  may  be.  So  were  the 
old  Scotch  Calvinists ;  so  have  been  some  of  the  noblest 
wildstocks  of  humanity — but  surely  they  are  not  un 
worthy  to  guard  a  nation.  *  *  *  If  a  gold  mine 
was  found  in  the  Boer's  territory,  was  it  not  his? 
The  Transvaal  franchise  needed  reform;  so  did  that 
of  England  within  living  memory  and  in  a  still  greater 
degree.  But  reform  was  not  the  object  of  Mr.  Cecil 
Rhodes  and  his  political  allies.  What  they  wanted 
was  to  give  the  ballot  to  people  who,  they  knew, 
would  use  it  to  vote  away  the  independence  of  the 
state." 

He  went  on  to  say  that  even  in  monarchical  Italy, 
where  he  had  recently  been,  the  "heart  of  the  people 
is  with  the  little  republic  which  is  fighting  for  its  in 
dependence." 

There  has  been,  I  think,  no  suggestion  that  this 
great  Englishman  spoke  under  the  stimulus  of  Trans 
vaal  gold.  Have  we  come  to  a  time  when  a  citizen 
of  the  Great  Republic  may  not  express  like  views 
without  becoming  a  "suspect"?  Must  we  turn  our 
pockets  inside  out  to  verify  our  disinterestedness, 
when  we  speak  for  a  "little  republic  which  is  fight 
ing  for  its  independence"? 

We  have  not  long  passed  the  time  when  the  man 
who  spoke  against  the  "little  republic"  would  have 


MUSINGS  ON   CURRENT   TOPICS  269 

been  the  "suspect."  A  paper  that  I  read  recently 
head-lined  a  news  dispatch,  announcing  the  return 
of  a  young  American  who  went  to  South  Africa  to 
fight  for  Boer  independence,  thus:  "The  Return  of 
a  Mercenary."  Yet  the  act  and  the  motive  of  this 
adventurous  young  American  would,  a  little  while 
ago,  have  reminded  us  of  LaFayette  or  Steuben. 

Mr.  James  Bryce  recently  said: 

"Indeed,  the  struggles  for  liberty  and  nationality 
are  almost  beginning  to  be  forgotten  by  the  new 
generation,  which  has  no  such  enthusiasm  for  these 
principles  as  men  had  forty  years  ago." 

And,  at  the  moment  when  two  republics  are  in 
articulo  mortis,  some  of  our  journals  congratulate  us 
over  the  prospect  of  an  increased  trade  with  the 
"Crown  Colonies"  that  are  to  be  set  up  in  their 
stead,  and  over  the  increased  output  of  the  Johannes 
burg  mines.  The  emperor  of  Germany  is  reported 
to  have  forestalled  President  Kruger's  personal  ap 
peal  by  the  statement  that  Germany's  interest  would 
be  promoted  by  the  British  conquest  of  the  republics. 
And  Bishop  Thoburn  asks:  "Why  should  people  la 
ment  the  absorption  of  the  small  powers  by  the  large 
ones?" 

Never  before  has  American  sympathy  failed,  or 
been  divided,  or  failed  to  find  its  voice,  when  a  peo 
ple  were  fighting  for  independence.  Can  we  now 
calculate  commercial  gains  before  the  breath  of  a  dying 
republic  has  quite  failed,  or  the  body  has  quite  taken 


27O  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

on  the  rigor  mortis?  If  international  justice,  gov 
ernment  by  the  people,  the  parity  of  the  nations,  have 
ceased  to  be  workable  things,  and  have  become  im 
practicable,  shall  we  part  with  them  with  a  sneer, 
or  simulate  regret,  even  if  we  have  lost  the  power  to 
feel  it?  May  not  one  be  allowed  to  contemplate  the 
heavens  with  suppressed  aspirations,  though  there 
are  no  "consumers"  there?  Do  we  need  to  make  a 
mock  of  the  stars,  because  we  can  not  appropriate 
them — because  they  do  not  take  our  produce?  Have 
we  disabled  ourselves? 

Mr.  Hoar  says  that  "by  last  winter's  terrible  blun- 
^er  *  #  *  we  have  lost  the  right  to  offer  our 
sympathy  to  the  Boer  in  his  wonderful  and  gallant 
struggle  against  terrible  odds  for  the  republic  in 
Africa."  It  is  a  terrible  charge. 

There  was  plainly  no  call  for  an  armed  interven 
tion  by  the  United  States  in  South  Africa,  and  per 
haps  our  diplomatic  suggestions  went  as  far  as  usage 
would  justify.  But  has  not  public  opinion  here  been 
somehow  strongly  perverted,  or  put  under  some  un 
wonted  repression?  If  we  have  lost  either  the  right 
to  denounce  aggression,  or  the  capacity  to  weep  when 
a  republic  dies,  it  is  a  grievous  loss. 


PART  TWO 


SOME  HINDRANCES  TO  LAW  REFORMS 

At  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  March  23, 1897 

When  one  speaks  to  young  men,  and  especially  to 
college  young  men,  he  is  not  at  full  liberty,  either 
as  to  his  theme  or  the  treatment  of  it.  His  words 
may  carry  further  than  he  thinks.  They  may  give 
a  turn  to  a  life.  Soberness  of  thought  and  a  fin 
ger  board  are  'among  the  needs  of  educated  young 
men.  There  is  a  tendency  to  sprint  and  kick  and 
tackle  and  to  high  jumping  that,  in  the  intellect 
ual  field  at  least,  needs  to  be  restrained.  There 
are  many  things  in  the  social  and  business  and  po 
litical  fields  that  ought  to  be  kicked  and  tackled, 
and  many  barriers  that  ought  to  be  jumped — but 
not  everything.  The  rush  line  and  the  flying  wedge 
must  be  used  with  discrimination  in  moral  and  in 
tellectual  strifes,  for  in  them  the  aim  should  not 
be  to  run  down  an  adversary,  but  to  lift  him  up. 
Victories  in  the  moral,  social,  intellectual  and  polit 
ical  fields  are  won  by  bringing  a  majority  over 
and  by  organizing  that  majority.  The  leader  of  any 

273 


274  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

great  reform  should  combine  the  zeal  of  a  crusader 
with  the  wisdom  of  Solon. 

My  purpose  in  this  address  is  not  so  much  to  in 
dicate  the  reforms  to  which  these  young  men  should 
give  their  powers  and  their  influence  when  they  en 
ter  a  professional  or  a  business  life,  as  to  point  out 
some  of  the  reasons  why  selfish  interests  so  often 
succeed  in  defeating  legal  reforms  that  would,  if 
they  were  rightly  presented  and  pursued,  command 
the  support  of  a  very  large  majority  of  the  electors. 
This  support  is  either  scattered  by  a  commingling  of 
issues,  by  making  politics  of  pure  business;  or  ren 
dered  futile  by  the  inability,  from  one  cause  or  an 
other,  of  our  legislators  to  frame  constitutional  and 
suitable  laws.  I  think  it  safe  to  say  that  five-sixths 
of  the  voters  of  the  country  favor  a  revision  of  the 
corporation  laws,  which  shall  limit  the  purposes  for 
which  corporations  may  be  organized;  supervise  the 
issuing  of  their  stocks  and  bonds,  so  that  fictitious 
and  watered  securities  may  not  be  issued,  and  every 
security  represent  investment  or  actual  value;  re 
strain  them  from  organizing  trusts  for  the  exac 
tion  of  illegitimate  gains  or  the  destruction  of  fair 
competition,  and  require  such  of  them  as  serve  the 
public  to  render  that  service  seasonably  and  well. 
Small  stockholders  should  have  better  protection. 
The  responsibilities  of  the  directorate  should  be 
greater.  Corporations  should  not  be  allowed,  as  now, 
to  avail  themselves  of  the  loose  corporation  laws  of 


SOME  HINDRANCES  TO  LAW  REFORMS     275 

one  state  for  incorporation,  when  their  business  is  to 
be  wholly  transacted  in  another.  That  is  to  permit 
one  state  to  legislate  for  another.  So  an  even  larger 
proportion  of  our  people  would  give  their  emphatic 
support  to  the  proposition  that  tax  burdens  should 
fall  equally  upon  all  property.  But  they  do  not,  as 
every  one  knows.  The  farmer  and  the  man  whose 
wealth  consists  of  lands,  houses,  live-stock,  imple 
ments  of  trade  and  such  like  property,  is  taxed 
upon  everything  he  has,  though  usually  at  less  than 
its  real  value.  It  can  not  be  hidden.  But  the  owner 
of  stocks  and  bonds  and  such  like  property  makes 
his  own  inventory  and  the  assessor  has  no  way  of 
checking  the  list.  A  "tax  ferret"  sometimes  un 
earths  the  skulking  securities  of  an  individual,  but 
that  result  only  suggests  that  much  more  is  in  hid 
ing.  Very  much  of  the  unrest  and  discontent  that 
pervade  the  minds  of  the  people  would  be  quieted  if 
every  man  could  be  convinced  that  every  other  man 
was  bearing  his  fair  proportion  of  the  public  bur 
dens.  I  take  these  two  great  subjects,  corporation 
and  tax  law  reforms,  which  have  been  under  public 
discussion  for  very  many  years,  as  illustrations  of  the 
inefficiency  of  our  legislative  methods. 

For  some  reason  or  reasons  the  honest  desire  of 
a  great  majority  of  the  people  that  corporate  powers 
shall  be  limited  and  regulated,  and  that  tax  burdens 
shall  be  equalized,  does  not  find  expression  in  the 
statutes.  My  purpose  is  to  search  out  some  of  the 


276  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

obstructive  influences.  First,  we  note  that  under  our 
loose  laws  corporations  have  greatly  multiplied.  The 
railroads  have  penetrated  to  every  neighborhood;  and 
every  county,  city  and  town  has  its  banking,  manu 
facturing  and  other  corporations.  During  the  period 
of  the  active  development  of  the  western  states  ev 
ery  possible  encouragement  was  given  to  the  build 
ing  of  railroads.  Large  subsidies  were  voted  by  the 
counties,  cities  and  townships  to  secure  railroad  com 
munications — these  aids  taking  the  form  of  stock 
subscriptions  or  of  outright  donations.  The  same 
form  of  aid,  with  large  donations  from  private 
sources,  has  often  been  given  to  secure  the  location 
of  manufacturing  corporations.  The  old  idea  of  the 
corporate  organization  was  that  a  work  requiring  a 
combination  of  the  wealth  of  many  persons  was  to 
be  done,  such  a  work  as  an  individual  or  a  part 
nership  could  not  accomplish,  or  that  a  public  use 
was  to  be  served,  and  that  a  corporate  agency  could 
be  better  regulated.  But  these  ideas  have  be 
come  obsolete,  and  we  now  have  corporations  en 
gaged  in  conducting  dry-goods  stores,  book-stores, 
drug  stores  and  almost  every  form  of  manufactur 
ing  or  mercantile  adventure.  These  enterprises  take 
the  corporate  form  either  to  secure  a  limited  liabil 
ity  of  the  investors,  or  to  avoid  the  complications 
that  often  arise  from  disagreements  between  partners 
as  to  management,  or  from  the  death  of  a  partner.  It 
follows  that  the  persons  now  interested  in  maintain- 


SOME   HINDRANCES   TO   LAW   REFORMS 

ing  the  present  loose  corporation  laws  are  very  numer 
ous  and  are  found  in  every  locality.  The  employes  of 
the  railroads  will,  spite  of  frequent  labor  troubles, 
be  found  supporting  the  management  and  the  stock 
holders  when  any  legislation  that  seriously  curtails 
earnings  is  threatened,  because  of  a  fear  that  such 
curtailment  will  require  a  cut  in  wages.  This  large 
body  of  managers,  investors  and  employes  is  com 
posed  of  individuals  of  more  than  the  average  in 
fluence,  especially  when  stirred  into  activity  by  a  large 
personal  interest.  The  sum  of  the  investments  in 
corporate  enterprises  of  all  sorts  is  enormous  and 
its  distribution  very  wide.  Individual  capitalists 
have  their  millions  so  invested,  and  widows,  guar 
dians  of  orphan  children,  trustees,  retired  and  super 
annuated  men  and  women,  and  educational  and 
charitable  organizations  are  the  holders  of  a  vast 
amount  in  the  aggregate  of  the  stock  and  bonds 
of  corporations.  All  the  influence  of  this  vast  army 
of  investors  will  clearly  be  thrown  against  any  un 
just  or  destructive  legislation,  and  very  much  of  it 
against  any  restrictive  legislation.  In  a  fight  against 
unjust  or  destructive  legislation  they  will  find  many 
allies  among  those  who  have  no  selfish  interest  to 
serve  and  no  investments  to  defend.  There  must  be 
fairness  in  the  application  of  the  proposed  legisla 
tion  if  the  support  of  just  and  intelligent  men  is 
invoked. 

There  are  some  things  that  must  be  taken  account 


278  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

of:  First,  it  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  people 
have  not  only  authorized  but  invited  the  organiza 
tion  of  all  these  corporations  and  the  investment  of 
capital  in  their  stocks  and  other  securities.  To  many 
of  them  public  aid  has  been  given,  and  the  inaugu 
ration  of  the  work  has  been  attended  by  popular 
demonstrations  of  joy.  Second,  it  must  also  be  kept 
in  mind  that  the  bankruptcy  of  any  legitimate  busi 
ness,  of  a  railroad  company,  of  a  manufacturing,  or 
a  mercantile  concern,  is  a  public  injury,  that  is  not 
compensated  by  destructive  cut  rates,  temporary  in 
their  nature,  nor  by  the  small  savings  of  the  bar 
gain  counter.  Auctions  and  sheriffs'  and  receivers' 
sales  ought  not  to  be  promoted.  There  may  be  no 
other  way  in  particular  cases,  but  they  ought  not 
to  be  the  desired  or  necessary  result  of  general 
legislation.  Third,  we  can  not  go  back  to  the  be 
ginning,  wipe  everything  out  and  construct  our  cor 
poration  laws  in  the  light  of  our  present  experience. 
The  ideal  is  not  possible.  We  must  take  things  as 
our  unwisdom,  or  that  of  our  fathers,  has  made 
them.  As  to  the  past,  we  can  do  little  more  than 
mend;  but  the  law  regulating  new  corporate  organi 
zations  is  wholly  within  our  power.  I  do  not  speak 
of  legal  restrictions  upon  the  power  of  the  state  to 
amend  or  repeal  the  laws  regulating  corporations, — 
that  is  generally  ample — but  of  the  limitations  that 
equity  imposes.  Innocent  investors  in  securities  must 
have  fair  treatment.  But  much  mending  may  be 


SOME    HINDRANCES   TO    LAW    REFORMS  279 

done,  and  ought  to  be.  Fourth,  the  work  of  re 
forming  our  corporation  laws  is  not  work  for  ap 
prentices.  The  corporate  system  of  the  country  is 
not  only  vast,  but  extremely  intricate.  The  work  is 
more  akin  to  watch-repairing  than  to  log-raising — 
and  yet  the  log-raisers  have  not  hesitated  to  assume 
it.  Fifth,  special  cases  often  suggest  the  necessity 
of  curative  legislation;  but  as  most  of  our  state  con 
stitutions  require  that  legislation  relating  to  corpo 
rations  shall  be  general,  it  is  neither  wise  nor  safe 
to  assume  that  a  particular  case  is  a  representative 
one,  and  to  administer  the  remedy  promiscuously. 
Sixth,  in  public  affairs,  the  best  attainable  good  is 
the  thing  to  be  sought.  The  professor  can  and 
ought  to  deal  with  ideals,  but  the  true  statesman  will 
not  forego  a  gain  for  good  government  because  it 
is  less  than  his  ideal.  He  will  not  force  into  the 
opposition  those  who  are  willing  to  join  him  in  an 
assault  upon  an  outpost  of  intrenched  wrong,  be 
cause  they  will  not  enlist  for  the  war.  Every  out 
post  taken  and  garrisoned  for  the  right,  strengthens 
the  right.  A  house  is  to  be  builded,  and  the  man 
who  is  willing  to  work  on  the  foundation  should 
not  be  driven  off  because  he  will  not  hire  for  work 
on  the  dome.  Seventh,  the  legislation  must  be  just. 
Unjust,  destructive  legislation  brings  a  reaction — a 
back-set.  It  is  either  over-turned  by  the  courts,  or 
loses  the  support  of  the  conservatives,  who  are  re 
formers  but  not  incendiaries. 


28O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

Let  us  see  now  if  we  can  find  some  of  the  rea 
sons  why  things  that  on  a  popular  vote  would  be 
overwhelmingly  supported  as  abstract  propositions,, 
by  conservatives  and  radicals  alike,  fail  year  after 
year  to  secure  legislative  action.  In  about  three- 
fourths  of  the  states  the  legislatures  meet  biennially. 
The  sessions,  in  a  majority  of  the  states,  are  limited 
to  an  average  of  about  sixty  days.  If  we  admit, 
for  the  present,  that  in  each  state  legislature  that 
assembles  there  are  to  be  found  public-spirited,  dis 
interested  and  honest  men,  capable  of  comprehend 
ing  the  broad  subjects  of  the  corporation  and  tax 
laws,  and  of  framing  laws  with  exactness  and  clear 
ness  of  expression,  and  with  a  due  consideration  of 
constitutional  restrictions,  still  these  difficulties  re 
main:  First,  to  bring  these  men  together  in  a  com 
mittee  charged  with  that  duty;  second,  to  find  for 
them  time,  during  the  stress  of  a  session's  work,  to 
give  the  subject  adequate  study  and  to  frame  the 
laws  that  shall  suitably  and  surely  secure  the  results 
they  have  reached.  And  how  are  the  two  houses  to 
find  time  to  consider  a  report  necessarily  late  in  its 
presentation,  within  the  short  limits  of  the  legisla 
tive  session?  The  theory  of  these  limitations  of  the 
legislative  sessions  seems  to  be  that,  aside  from  rev 
enue  and  appropriation  bills,  and  bills  of  a  local  na 
ture,  only  patching  and  tinkering  is  to  be  done.  A 
general  code  of  laws  has  already  been  adopted,  re 
ported  in  many  cases  by  a  commission  of  revision 


SOME   HINDRANCES   TO   LAW   REFORMS  281 

a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  upon  the  body  of  which 
patches,  large  and  small,  have  from  time  to  time 
been  placed — very  often  with  the  result  that  "the 
rent  is  made  worse."  Now  and  then  a  member  may 
be  found  who  has  given  some  preliminary  study  to 
these  great  questions,  but  as  a  rule  the  bills  that  are 
found  in  the  pockets  of  members  are  of  a  local  na 
ture,  directed  to  the  pleasing  of  a  particular  constit 
uency,  or  of  some  influential  member  or  members  of 
it.  The  disadvantages  under  which  a  revision  of 
the  laws  upon  any  great  general  subject  must  be 
pursued  by  a  sixty-day  legislature  are  such  that  it 
is  rather  a  subject  of  congratulation  than  complaint 
that  it  is  so  rarely  attempted. 

The  framing  of  a  statute  is  nice  work,  and  every 
important  statute  should,  as  to  its  frame  and  its 
phraseology,  be  examined  by  a  law  committee — or 
at  least  by  good  lawyers.  Many  laws  are  framed 
by  men  who  are  wholly  ignorant  of  the  constitu 
tional  restrictions  upon  the  legislative  power — and  as 
a  consequence  the  courts  are  constantly  and  neces 
sarily  annulling  statutes  because  they  are,  in  form 
or  substance,  contrary  to  the  fundamental  law. 

The  inadequacies  of  our  legislatures  to  deal  with 
a  systematic  and  congruous  revision  of  the  laws 
upon  some  of  the  great  themes  of  legislation  have 
many  illustrations,  even  where  they  sit  in  unlimited 
sessions.  The  first  disqualification  for  such  work 
that  I  observe  in  legislative  bodies  is  that  the  houses, 


!282  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

as  well  as  their  committees,  sit  amid  political  and 
social  distractions  that  are  not  favorable  to  that  pa 
tient,  continuous  study  of  a  single  subject  that  is 
essential,  if  good,  enduring  work  is  to  be  done.  No 
member  can  or  ought  to  give  his  whole  attention 
on  any  single  day  to  one  subject.  He  is  responsi 
ble  in  his  measure  for  everything  that  is  done  in  the 
body  of  which  he  is  a  member.  He  must  be  in  his 
seat  every  day  of  the  session;  must  be  recorded  when 
the  ayes  and  noes  are  taken;  must  take  part  in  de 
bates  upon  other  subjects,  attend  party  caucuses,  get 
door-keepers'  places  for  his  friends,  welcome  and  en 
tertain  his  visiting  constituents,  and  do  innumerable 
chores  for  others  of  them.  He  has  no  uninter 
rupted  hours,  unless  he  snatches  them  from  sleep. 
He  has,  in  a  word,  neither  the  time  nor  the  mental 
frame  for  great  constructive  work  in  legislation.  It 
may  be  said,  however,  that  our  senators  and  repre 
sentatives,  national  and  state,  should  devote  their 
time  when  congress  or  the  legislature  is  not  in  ses 
sion  to  the  study  of  the  great  questions  of  legisla 
tive  reform  and  to  the  preparation  of  bills  to  carry 
them  into  effect;  and  so  they  should.  But  in  fact 
they  do  not — as  a  rule.  They  are  in  many  cases 
paid  only  a  per  diem  during  the  actual  sittings  of 
the  bodies  of  which  they  are  members,  and  if  paid 
an  annual  salary,  the  necessity  of  supplementing 
that  salary  by  professional  or  other  labor,  or,  as  to 
the  wealthy,  of  caring  for  their  investments  and' 


SOME    HINDRANCES   TO    LAW    REFORMS  283 

business,  fills  the  vacation  months  with  exacting  la 
bors.  A  member  of  the  Indiana  legislature  gives 
three  months  of  his  time,  and  perhaps  a  contribu 
tion  in  money,  to  the  campaign  for  his  election,  and 
two  months  more  to  the  legislative  session,  and  re 
ceives  from  the  state  a  total  of  $360,  excluding 
mileage.  Most  of  these  members  are  men  of  small 
means,  and  it  is  quite  unreasonable  to  demand  that 
they  shall  give  even  the  sixty  days  that  elapse  be 
tween  their  election  and  the  meeting  of  the  legis 
lature  wholly  and  studiously  to  the  consideration  of 
the  great  questions  that  are  pending  for  a  solution. 
And  again,  such  questions  as  tax  and  corporation 
reforms  are  not  to  be  solved  by  individual  investi 
gators  in  the  study.  There  must  be  a  comparison  of 
views,  debate,  and  the  hearing  of  all  interests  to  be 
affected,  if  crudity  and  confusion  are  to  be  escaped. 
The  legislation  will  be  subjected  to  the  fire  of  the 
ablest  legal  minds  in  the  country,  as  to  its  constitu 
tionality  and  as  to  the  interpretation  of  its  provisions. 
These  gentlemen  will  not  be  required  to  turn  aside 
from  their  critical  study  of  the  law,  in  order  to 
earn  a  living,  as  the  framers  of  the  law  were.  The 
framer  of  an  important  law  must  be  more  than  a 
master  of  constitutional  law  and  of  clear  expression. 
He  must  have  a  practical  business  knowledge  of  the 
matters  he  is  dealing  with.  There  must  be  not  only 
pathological  skill,  but  a  competent  acquaintance  with 
the  materia  medica.  Corporation  reform  has  been 


284  VIEWS    OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

very  much  retarded  by  the  flood  of  destructive  and 
impossible  bills  that  pours  into  every  legislative 
body.  They  are  the  product  of  ill-informed  minds, 
often  made  more  than  naturally  incapable  by  malice 
or  undue  heat.  Hysteria  and  spite  are  not  the  pro 
genitors  of  good  legislation.  Such  bills  carry  the 
conservatives  over  to  the  opposition.  It  has  been 
said — and  I  fear  with  too  much  truth  in  some  cases 
— that  these  bills  are  often  presented  with  no  other 
purpose  than  to  excite  the  alarm  of  the  corporations 
affected,  and  that  the  mover  is  quite  amenable  to  the 
influence  of  reason,  if  it  is  urged  privately,  and  is 
of  the  right  denomination.  Bills  to  regulate  the 
freight  and  passenger  rates  of  the  railroads  of  a 
state  are  proposed  by  men  as  ignorant  of  the  com 
plications  and  difficulties  of  railroad  management  as 
a  horse  is  of  astronomy.  It  is  usually  easy  for  the 
corporations  to  defeat  such  legislation;  for  it  is  usu 
ally  easily  shown  to  be  unjust  and  destructive.  And 
so  things  move  along  and  nothing  is  done. 

There  were  for  many  years  pending  in  congress, 
renewed  each  session,  and  advocated  by  fiery  cham 
pions,  bills  to  forfeit  the  land  grants  of  the  rail 
roads.  A  bill  to  forfeit  unearned  lands — lands 
abutting  on  such  parts  of  the  lines  as  had  not  yet 
been  completed — could  have  been  passed  at  almost 
any  time;  but  these  fiery  champions  of  the  people 
would  have  nothing  less  than  a  forfeiture  carried 
back  to  the  date  when  the  railroads  should  have  been 


SOME    HINDRANCES   TO   LAW    REFORMS  285 

completed.  And  so  the  congressional  battle  went  on, 
but  made  no  progress,  while  the  railroads  went  on, 
completed  their  lines  and  got  the  lands.  Texas  re 
cently  passed  an  anti-trust  law,  so  framed — as  the 
courts  interpreted  it — as  to  make  it  penal  for  two 
merchants  conducting  rival  stores  in  a  cross-roads 
village,  at  a  loss  by  reason  of  the  limited  patronage, 
to  form  a  copartnership  and  combine  their  stocks 
and  capital.  It  exempted,  I  think,  combinations 
among  farmers,  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  up  the 
prices  of  farm  products,  from  the  penalties  denounced 
against  other  combines;  and  the  labor  organizations 
always  reserve  the  right  to  combine  for  the  purpose 
of  raising  wages,  while  insisting  that  their  employ 
ers  shall  not  combine  for  the  purpose  of  keeping 
up  the  prices  of  the  products  of  labor.  We  may 
mourn  the  departure  of  the  good  old  times  when  the 
blacksmith  hammered  out  his  own  horseshoes;  when 
the  hatter  made  hats,  and  the  shoemaker  shoes; 
when  mutton  chops  and  ribbons  were  not  sold  in  the 
same  store;  but  we  must  not  too  hastily  assume  that 
statutes  can  re-establish  the  old  order.  The  Texas 
law  was  too  broad.  There  must  be  more  consid 
eration,  more  moderation,  more  legal  acumen,  when 
anti-trust  laws  are  written.  A  convention  resolu 
tion  and  a  statute  are  quite  different  things.  In  the 
next  place  our  legislators  are  chosen  from  districts, 
not  from  the  state  at  large,  and  are  almost  sure  to 
be  charged  with  some  local  legislation  to  which  they 


286  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

give  the  first  place  in  the  apportionment  of  their 
'time  and  efforts.  The  favorable  judgment  of  his 
immediate  constituents  is  the  reward  he  craves. 
Hence  his  labors  are  given  to  those  things  that  will 
attract  their  notice,  or  the  notice  of  some  active  and 
controlling  element  in  his  district.  At  the  worst  he 
becomes  the  attorney  in  fact  of  a  boss,  of  a  corpora 
tion,  or  of  a  syndicate.  In  his  better  state  he  gets 
everything  he  can  for  his  district — a  new  judge,  a 
public  building,  the  payment  of  a  private  claim,  or 
a  high  duty  on  plate  glass  or  castor  beans.  Upon 
questions  that  do  not  particularly  affect  his  district, 
or  that  of  some  brother  member,  he  will  take  na 
tional  or  state  interests  into  consideration  and  give 
them  weight;  but  he  takes  little  account  of  the  state 
of  the  treasury,  or  of  the  bad  precedent  to  be  made, 
when  an  appropriation  for  his  district  is  pending. 
He  is  "agin  the  government"  when  the  demands  of 
his  district  and  the  demands  for  national  economy 
conflict.  There  is  great  human  nature  in  all  this, 
and  most  men  who  have  had  legislative  service  will 
be  ready  to  say  mea  culpa.  He  knows,  or  thinks  he 
does,  what  his  district  wants,  and  feels  a  sense  of 
injury  if  any  brother  member  obstructs  or  opposes 
.his  local  bill,  and  so  it  comes  about  that  a  brotherly 
reciprocity  is  established,  and  much  log-rolling  legis 
lation  is  enacted.  The  idea — the  true  constitutional 
one — that  every  senator  and  representative  repre 
sents,  in  state  legislatures  the  state,  and  in  congress 


SOME    HINDRANCES    TO   LAW    REFORMS  ^7 

the  nation,  precisely  as  if  he  had  been  voted  for  at 
large,  instead  of  in  a  state  or  a  district,  seems  to 
be  losing  its  power,  not  only  over  our  legislators, 
but  in  the  public  mind.  The  assumption  that  other 
members  of  a  legislative  body  must  yield  their  views 
as  to  the  wisdom  or  constitutionality  of  a  local  meas 
ure  to  those  of  the  members  chosen  from  that  local 
ity  is  not  only  impudent,  but  absolutely  destructive 
of  our  civil  system.  This  suggestion  has  been  the 
prolific  parent  of  bad  legislation.  It  is  not  only 
quite  natural,  but  quite  proper,  that  much  consid 
eration  should  be  given  to  the  information  which  a 
member  may  have  as  to  the  local  status,  with  which 
he  has  a  special  acquaintance;  but  when  all  infor 
mation  bearing  upon  the  subject  has  been  presented, 
every  conscientious  member  of  the  body  must  under 
his  oath  vote  his  own  convictions  of  the  justice  or 
injustice,  constitutionality  or  unconstitutionality  of 
the  proposed  measure.  Mr.  Bryce,  in  his  American 
Commonwealth,  says  of  this  tendency  to  localism  in 
our  legislation: 

"The  spirit  of  localism,  surprisingly  strong  every 
where  in  America,  completely  rules  them.  A  mem 
ber  is  not  a  member  for  his  state,  chosen  by  a  dis 
trict  but  bound  to  think  first  of  the  general  welfare 
of  the  commonwealth.  He  is  a  member  for  Browns 
ville,  or  Pompey,  or  the  Seventh  district,  and  so 
forth,  as  the  case  may  be.  His  first  and  main  duty 
is  to  get  the  most  he  can  for  his  constituency  out 


288  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

of  the  state  treasury,  or  by  means  of  state  legisla 
tion.  No  appeal  to  the  general  interest  would  have 
weight  with  him  against  the  interests  of  that  spot. 
What  is  more,  he  is  deemed  by  his  colleagues  of  the 
same  party  to  be  the  sole  exponent  of  the  wishes 
of  the  spot,  and  solely  entitled  to  handle  its  affairs. 
If  he  approves  a  bill  which  affects  the  place  and 
nothing  but  the  place,  that  is  conclusive.  Nobody 
else  has  any  business  to  interfere.  This  rule  is  the 
more  readily  accepted,  because  its  application  all 
around  serves  the  private  interest  of  every  member 
alike,  while  members  of  more  enlarged  views,  who 
ought  to  champion  the  interests  of  the  state  and  sound 
general  principles  of  legislation,  are  rare.  When 
such  is  the  accepted  doctrine  as  well  as  invariable 
practice,  log-rolling  becomes  natural  and  almost  le 
gitimate.  Each  member  being  the  judge  of  the 
measure  which  touches  his  own  constituency,  every 
other  member  supports  that  member  in  passing  the 
measure,  expecting  in  return  the  like  support  in  a 
like  cause.  He  who  in  the  public  interest  opposes 
the  bad  bill  of  another,  is  certain  to  find  that  other 
opposing,  and  probably  with  success,  his  own  bill, 
however  good." 

This  prevalence  of  the  local  idea  affects  general 
law  reforms  injuriously  in  another  particular.  Only 
a  particular  and  local  abuse  has  been  observed,  and 
the  bill  proposed  takes  that  special  direction.  It 
may  be  right,  but  it  is  partial;  it  does  not  cover  the 


SOME   HINDRANCES   TO   LAW   REFORMS  289 

whole  field;  and  there  is  a  certain  amount  of  pop 
ular  sympathy  with  the  appeal  that  one  guilty  man 
ought  not  to  be  punished  while  scores  of  others 
equally  guilty  go  free.  The  legislation  is  framed  to 
meet  an  isolated  case  that  has  come  under  the  ob 
servation  of  the  member,  and  is  not  laid  down  on 
broad  lines. 

No  facts  of  current  history  are  more  apparent 
than  these:  that  the  senate  of  the  United  States  has 
largely  ceased  to  be  what  the  framers  of  the  con 
stitution  intended  it  to  be  and  what,  for  near  a  hun 
dred  years,  it  was — the  sedate  and  conservative 
branch  of  our  national  legislature;  and  that  the 
larger  body,  the  house  of  representatives,  has  in  very 
many  matters  involving  popular  feeling  and  excite 
ment,  been  less  quickly  responsive  to  these  waves  of 
public  feeling  than  the  senate.  The  house  acts 
quickly;  the  senate  talks  and  does  not  act  at  all,  if 
there  is  an  obstinate  minority.  Waiving  some  other 
considerations  that  have  tended  to  produce  these  re 
sults,  I  think  the  controlling  fact  is  this:  that  in 
the  senate  there  is  an  entire  absence  of  leadership, 
of  any  power  in  the  presiding  officer  to  discriminate 
between  those  seeking  the  floor,  and  no  rule  for 
'closing  debate.  The  combined  result  is  that  any 
'senator  may  at  almost  any  time  introduce  any  sub- 
'ject  and  speak  upon  it  and  force  a  vote  of  the  senate 
!upon  it  in  some  form.  The  first  senator  who  ad- 
'dresses  the  chair  must  be  recognized.  In  the  house 


VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

there  is  a  strong  leadership  and  a  most  effective  con 
trol  of  the  business  to  come  before  the  house.  Mem 
bers  arrange  beforehand  with  the  speaker  for  recogni 
tion,  and  it  is  not  thought  to  be  impertinent  for  the 
speaker  to  ask  the  member  what  he  desires  to  call  up. 
There  may  be  some  fuming  if  the  speaker  refuses  to 
recognize  a  member  because  he  does  not  think  the  mat 
ter  should  be  called  up  at  all,  or  at  that  time,  but  every 
body  sees  that  it  will  not  do  to  let  everybody  call  up 
everything  in  a  house  of  three  hundred  and  fifty- 
nine  members.  The  speaker  is  chosen  by  the  votes 
of  the  majority  party  to  the  leadership  he  exercises, 
and  is  always  open  to  the  advice  of  the  members 
and  to  the  suggestions  or  directions  of  a  caucus.  He 
is  not  administering  spites  or  favoritism^,  but  is  con 
ducting  the  policies  of  the  majority,  and  holds  his 
leadership  only  so  long  as  he  holds  the  confidence 
of  a  majority  of  the  house.  When  a  subject  is  once 
properly  before  the  house  the  time  allotted  to  debate 
is  divided  fairly  to  those  indicated  by  the  respective 
leaders  on  the  floor,  and  the  vote  is  absolutely  free. 
The  restraints  are  upon  talk  and  upon  the  order  of 
business,  and  these  are  self-imposed  restraints — in 
the  public  interest.  In  the  English  house  of  com 
mons  the  ministry  directs  the  order  of  business. 
There  is  a  parliamentary  leader.  The  house  may 
break  away,  for  here  too  the  restraint  is  self-im 
posed,  but  the  break  does  not  discard  leadership — 
only  changes  leaders.  A  large  legislative  body  in 


SOME    HINDRANCES   TO    LAW    REFORMS 

which  any  member  may  at  any  time  bring  up  any 
subject  and  speak  upon  it  at  any  length  is  certain  to, 
be  impulsive,  erratic  and  unsafe. 

A  remark  upon  this  topic  that  was  wrung  from 
me  while  in  public  life  has  been  incorrectly  given 
in  the  newspapers;  but  I  did  say  that  there  was  a 
crying  need  of  more  United  States  senators,  and 
perhaps  in  that  connection  I  did  mention,  by  way 
of  illustration,  the  name  of  one  senator  who  never 
had  any  "little  bills"  of  his  own,  and  was  in  conse 
quence  not  afraid  to  oppose  the  "little  bills"  of  his 
colleagues,  if  the  national  interests  seemed  to  re 
quire  it. 

The  conclusion  to  which  my  observation  and  ex 
perience  has  brought  me  is  that  the  legislative  de 
partments,  especially  the  legislatures  of  the  states, 
are  not  capable  of  dealing  in  their  sessions  with  the 
great  law  reforms  that  are  now  imperatively  press 
ing  for  attention.  The  present  difficulties  are 
largely  the  result  of  legislation  that  was  enacted  in 
the  rush  and  excitement  of  a  material  develop 
ment  that — especially  as  to  railroads — has  now 
passed  its  climax.  "Anything  to  get  railroads"  was 
then  the  cry.  Now  we  have  come  to  a  time 
when  they  are  denounced  as  the  oppressors  of 
the  people,  and  the  investors  are  constantly  threat 
ened  by  destructive  legislation.  The  fight  has  in 
many  cases  been  so  blind  and  so  bitter  as  to 
affect  all  classes  of  business,  The  investment  in 


VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

railroad  securities  is  so  enormous  and  so  wide 
ly  distributed  that  it  could  not  be  otherwise. 
We  are  all  involved.  We  can  not  stand  apart. 

If  our  plan  of  taxation  includes,  notes,  bonds 
and  stocks  they  must  all  be  listed.  It  is 
not  essential  that  all  property  should  be  taxed  at  its 
full  value.  It  is  enough  that  the  taxable  value  is 
relatively  equal;  but  it  is  essential  that  all  property 
that  the  law  subjects  to  taxation  should  be  returned 
and  assessed.  In  a  recent  interview  the  Reverend 
Dr.  Rainsford  said : 

"Let  me  mention  two  instances  which  I  person 
ally  know  to  be  true.  One  gentleman  worth  sev 
eral  millions  told  me  himself  that  he  was  assessed 
on  only  $30,000.  He  added  that  a  friend  of  his, 
worth  ten  times  as  much  as  he,  was  assessed  on 
$100,000.  Assessments  on  these  estates  (and  they 
are  not  estates  in  which  there  is  much  realty),  may 
have  been  slightly  raised  since  then,  for  this  con 
versation  occurred  two  or  three  years  ago.  But 
the  evil  principle  remains." 

The  Hon.  James  A.  Roberts,  comptroller  of  the 
state  of  New  York,  in  his  last  annual  report  fur 
nishes  some  very  interesting  statistics  and  makes 
some  advanced  suggestions.  He  notes  the  fact 
that  the  addition  of  three  and  one-half  millions 
to  the  state  revenues  from  new  excise  taxes  had  not 
secured  the  expected  reduction  in  the  general  tax 
rate,  and  says:  "There  is  danger  therefore  that 


SOME    HINDRANCES    TO   LAW   REFORMS  293 

unless  a  determined  effort  is  made  to  keep  down 
unusual  and  extraordinary  expenditures,  the  in 
creased  income  from  the  excise  law  may  incite  a 
desire  for  appropriations  and  thus  raise  the  tax  rate 
instead  of  lowering  it." 

He  is  right.  Easy  come,  easy  go.  When 
everybody  feels  that  his  money  is  being  spent 
everybody  is  an  economist.  When  one  is  din 
ing  at  the  cost  of  another  he  takes  no  account 
of  the  reckoning.  If  a  scheme  of  taxation  could  be 
devised  by  which  the  whole  burden  of  supporting 
the  state — its  schools,  its  benevolent  institutions, 
its  police  and  municipal  systems — would  be  placed 
upon  the  corporations  and  the  very  rich  alone,  its 
adoption  would  inaugurate  an  era  of  the  decadence 
of  public  virtue  and  public  spirit,  and  bring  in  one 
of  public  wastefulness  and  profligacy.  It  would 
pauperize  in  the  things  that  are  of  more  value  than 
shekels.  The  contributing  citizen  is  the  watchful 
citizen;  and  we  have  none  too  many  watchers  when 
all  are  such.  Equality  and  not  spoliation  should  be 
the  watchword  of  the  tax  reformer. 

In  discussing  the  question  of  an  inheritance  tax 
Mr.  Roberts  gives  some  figures  that  would  be  start 
ling,  if  our  own  observation  had  not  prepared  our 
minds  for  them.  The  taxable  value  of  real  estate 
in  the  state  of  New  York  increased  one  hundred 
and  fifty-five  per  cent,  between  the  years  1870  and 
1895,  while  during  the  same  period  taxable  personal 


294  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

property  only  increased  six  per  cent.  The  equalized 
taxable  value  of  real  estate  in  1895  was  nearly  four 
billion  dollars  ($3,908,853,377),  while  the  taxable 
value  of  personal  property  was  a  little  less  than  half 
a  billion  ($459,859,526).  Mr.  Roberts  says:  "Now 
it  is  a  well  known  fact  that  the  increase  in  value 
of  personal  property  in  this  state  of  late  years  has 
been  much  more  rapid  than  that  of  real  estate,  and 
that  the  amount  of  personal  property  owned  here  is 
equal  to,  if  not  more,  than  the  amount  of  real 
estate;  *  *  *  The  total  amount  of  personal 
property  now  on  the  tax  rolls  is  a  trifle  over  one- 
ninth  as  much  as  the  real  estate  and  only  a  frac 
tion  more  than  it  was  twenty-six  years  ago."  He 
then  states  that  since  1886,  as  shown  by  official  re 
turns,  there  had  been  invested  in  corporations 
alone  "nearly  five  times  as  much  as  the  total 
amount  of  personal  property  now  upon  the  tax 
rolls  of  the  state." 

The  New  York  financial  press  report  very  re 
cently  noticed  large  shipments  of  gold  from  San 
Francisco  to  New  York,  and  stated  they  were  made 
to  avoid  taxation.  A  way  must  be  devised  that  will 
bring  to  the  tax  roll  this  vast  aggregate  of  untaxed 
personal  property;  but  it  will  never  be  accomplished 
by  the  impulsive  hodge-podge  methods  of  sixty- 
day  legislatures. 

The  suggestion  has  been  made  that  only  such 
property  as  has  been  scheduled  for  taxation  shall 


SOME    HINDRANCES   TO    LAW    REFORMS  295 

pass  by  descent  or  by  will,'  and  that  any  prop 
erty,  the  ownership  of  which  has  in  his  life  been 
annually  denied  by  the  decedent  in  his  tax  re 
turn,  shall  escheat  to  the  state.  There  would 
seem  to  be  a  measure  of  justice  in  taking  the 
tax  dodger  at  his  word — and  not  allowing  him 
to  dispose  of  property  that  he  has  solemnly  de 
clared  did  not  belong  to  him. 

Taxation  is  not  equal.  Why  is  it  not  made 
approximately  so,  since  the  governing  majority  is 
in  favor  of  it?  Why  does  not  this  great  middle 
body  of  the  people,  standing  between  the  "pluto 
crats"  and  the  "anarchists,"  and  many  times  out 
numbering  them  both,  make  itself  as  effectually  felt 
in  correcting  legal  and  social  abuses  as  it  does  in 
stamping  out  fires  and  suppressing  riots?  The 
only  answer  is  that  the  executive  and  judicial  forces 
of  the  government  act  quickly  and  directly,  while 
the  legislative  forces,  hampered  by  the  considera 
tions  I  have  mentioned,  and  by  the  greater  compli 
cations  of  the  questions,  seem  to  be  inadequate  to 
the  work  of  legal  reform.  The  making  of  wise  laws 
is  a  higher  and  more  difficult  work  than  that  of  in 
terpreting  or  executing  them.  How  are  these  and 
other  great  reform  bills  to  be  framed,  and  how  are 
our  legislative  bodies  to  be  roused  to  the  exigency 
of  enacting  them?  It  seems  to  me  that  the  laws 
must  be  framed  by  commissions  composed  of  the 
ablest  men  in  the  states.  The  commissions  must 


296  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

be  given  time  to  make  a  thorough  study  of  the 
subject.  When  they  have  laid  down  tentatively 
the  general  lines  upon  which  the  laws  shall  be 
drawn,  an  opportunity  should  be  given  to  the 
representatives  of  the  interests  to  be  affected,  and 
to  the  public  to  present  suggestions  and  objec 
tions.  There  should  be  no  attempt  to  bring  in 
the  millennium  on  the  morrow.  It  would  be  too 
sudden.  The  ideal  can  not  be  reached  at  a  step. 
But  we  should  face  that  way,  and  move. 

In  my  judgment,  nothing  has  so  much  retarded 
the  progress  of  these  reforms  as  the  excesses  in 
speech  and  action  of  the  men  who  have  stood  as 
their  exponents.  A  brutal  policeman  may  compel 
us  to  defend  a  thief.  When  a  judge  gives  out  the 
cry  of  the  mob  from  the  seat  of  the  law,  he  does 
not  promote  the  solution  of  any  of  the  troubles  we 
have,  but  only  discloses  another,  and  a  very  seri 
ous  one. 

It  not  infrequently  happens  that  those  who  un 
seat  the  public  reason  by  clamorous  denunciations 
of  corporations  are  coining  this  inflamed  and  often 
uninformed  public  sentiment  into  dollars  that  by  a 
secret  slot  are  falling  into  their  own  coffers.  Re 
form  is  not  promoted — it  is  only  a  squeeze.  A 
recent  newspaper  paragraph  puts  it  thus:  "In  Al 
bany  they  call  them  'strike'  bills;  in  Sacramento 
'cinch'  bills;  in  Missouri,  'squeezers;'  and  there 
you  are." 


SOME    HINDRANCES   TO   LAW   REFORMS 

When  the  udder  has  been  emptied  into  their  pail, 
the  devastations  of  the  cow  in  the  public  corn  may 
be  resumed — and  they  will  not  see  her  though  she 
be  as  big  as  an  elephant.  A  tempest  lifts  things 
up,  but  they  come  down.  It  has  neither  sustaining 
force  nor  discrimination.  It  draws  no  line  between 
things  that  ought  to  be  reconstructed  and  things 
that  should  be  utterly  destroyed. 

But  before  the  commission  we  must  have  a 
zealous,  sedate,  educated,  organized,  non-partisan, 
public  sentiment.  That  great  patriotic  middle  body 
of  our  people — not  a  remnant — but  the  mass  must 
become  something  more  than  a  fire  brigade.  It  is 
not  enough  to  say  that  there  must  be  no  violence — 
the  law  must  not  only  be  obeyed,  but  it  must  be 
right.  These  and  kindred  reforms  lag  only  be 
cause  their  supporters  are  not  organized.  There 
is  no  plan — no  effective  co-operation.  The  first  step, 
in  my  judgment,  is  the  organization  of  commissions, 
composed  of  able,  wise  and  patriotic  men,  to  take 
up  these  problems  and  to  give  their  undivided  time 
and  their  most  solicitous  thought  to  their  solution. 
If  there  could  be  co-operation  between  the  states  it 
would  be  very  helpful  and  would  tend  to  promote 
another  much  desired  end — harmonious  legislation. 


ILLINOIS  INHERITANCE  TAX  CASES 


Josephine  C.  Drake  et  al.t  Executors,  &c.,  Plaintiffs  in  Error,  v.  Daniel  H. 
Kochersperger,  County  Treasurer,  &c.,  of  Cook  County,  Illinois.  No.  ^5. 

Elizabeth  Emerson  Sawyer  et  al+,  Executors,  dec.,  Plaintiffs  in  Error,  v.  The 
Same.  No.  463. 

Jessie  Norton  Torrence  Magoun,  Appellant,  v.  Illinois  Trust  and  Savings 
Sank,  as  Executor,  <&c.,  of  Joseph  T.  Torrence,  deceased,  and  Daniel  H. 
Kochersperger,  County  Ti'easurer,  &c.  No.  464. 


GENERAL  HARRISON'S  LAST  ARGUMENT  BEFORE  THE 
SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES — MADE 
ON  BEHALF  OF  PLAINTIFFS  IN  ERROR  AND  APPEL 
LANT  IN  SUPPORT  OF  THE  CONTENTION  THAT  THE 
ILLINOIS  INHERITANCE  TAX  LAW  is  UNCONSTITU 
TIONAL  BECAUSE  IN  CONFLICT  WITH  THE  PROVISIONS 

OF  THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT. 

Washington,  1898. 

May  It  Please  Your  Honors: 

Before  addressing  myself  to  the  line  of  argu 
ment  which  I  have  marked  out,  it  may  not  be  in 
appropriate  to  make  reference  to  the  suggestion  of 
the  attorney-general  of  Illinois — that  this  law 
might  be  held  by  this  court  to  be  unconstitutional 

298 


INHERITANCE   TAX    CASES 

as  to  the  third  class,  and  sustained  as  to  the  other 
classes.  We  have  in  this  law  what  was  evidently 
intended  to  be  a  system  of  succession  or  inheritance 
taxation.  This  is  one  of  several  classes  that  the 
law  defines  and  upon  which  it  levies  taxes.  It  is 
the  class,  if  your  honors  please,  least  favored;  the 
unfavored  class  in  this  legislation;  a  class  described 
as  "all  others,"  after  the  two  classifications  that  em 
brace  kinship  to  very  remote  limits.  It  is  mostly 
the  stranger  who  is  taxed  by  this  clause.  Surely 
the  learned  attorney-general  would  not  ask  this  hon 
orable  court  to  conclude  that  the  legislature  of  his 
state  would  desire  that  the  residue  of  the  statute 
should  be  maintained  if  this  part  were  to  be  de 
clared  unconstitutional.  Surely  he  would  not  be 
willing  or  have  us  believe  that  the  legislature 
would  have  been  willing  that  the  unfavored  class — 
the  class  the  legislature  was  most  anxious  to  tax 
and  to  tax  most  heavily — should  escape,  while  the 
children  and  nearer  relatives  of  the  decedent  are 
held  to  be  subject  to  the  operation  of  this  law. 

There  is  another  feature  of  the  law  which,  I 
think  I  would  be  justified  in  saying,  after  listening 
to  these  arguments  and  reading  these  briefs,  is  con 
fessed  by  counsel  to  be  unconstitutional.  There  is 
a  feature  of  it  that  is  not  supported  by  any  argu 
ment  or  by  any  citation  which  these  gentlemen  have 
presented  to  the  court.  They  have  entirely  failed  to 


'3OO  VIEWS    OF    AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

inform  the  court,  either  in  the  brief  or  in  the  oral  ar 
gument,  of  the  fact  that  this  tax  is  levied  upon  gifts 
and  conveyances  inter  vivos,  if  they  are  made  in 
contemplation  of  death  or  to  take  effect  after  death. 

MR.  MORAN:  They  are  testamentary  in  char 
acter — 

MR.  HARRISON  :  Testamentary  in  character !  Does 
this  honorable  gentleman  contend  that,  when  one  is 
in  life  and  in  the  full  possession  of  his  faculties,  he 
has  no  natural  right  to  endow  a  child  by  an  exe 
cuted  gift  or  conveyance,  taking  effect  immediately, 
in  contemplation  of  his  own  approaching  death, 
but  that  that  act  is  to  be  rated  and  put  upon  the 
same  plane  with  the  gifts  by  will  of  which  he  has 
spoken?  I  know  it  has  been  a  part  of  almost  every 
law  taxing  successions  that  gifts  made  in  contem 
plation  of  death  are  included.  Because  otherwise 
such  a  law  could  not  be  executed.  But,  does  Mr. 
Moran  contend  that,  being  in  life  and  in  the  full 
possession  of  one's  mental  powers  and  in  the  full  con 
trol  of  one's  property,  one  may  not  in  contempla 
tion  of  death  take  from  one's  safe  a  package  of 
bonds  and  hand  them  to  a  friend  in  trust  for  the 
maintenance  of  a  minor  child,  for  whose  support 
one's  estate  has  been  chargeable,  upon  the  ground  that 
the  child  has  no  natural  right  to  such  support?  I 
understood  that  counsel,  in  response  to  a  question 
of  the  court,  admitted  that  the  power  of  the  owner 


INHERITANCE   TAX    CASES  30 1 

over  property  during  life  was  absolute.  If  this  Be 
true — and  it  is  plainly  true — where  is  there  any  au 
thority,  where  is  there  any  suggestion  to  be  drawn 
from  history  or  from  legal  principles,  that  would 
put  any  limitation  upon  the  power  of  one  who  is 
nearing  the  limit  of  human  life  to  make  provision, 
by  a  division  of  his  property,  for  those  whom  na 
ture  has  made  dependent  upon  him?  How  does 
the  doctrine  of  a  "bonus"  for  a  privilege,  as  my 
friend  puts  it,  apply  in  such  a  case  as  that?  No 
right  is  exercised  under  the  statute  of  wills  or  of 
descents  of  the  state  of  Illinois  or  from  any  other 
statute.  If  both  those  statutes  were  repealed,  the 
right  to  dispose  of  property  during  life  would  re 
main.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  there  is  no  an 
swer  to  this  suggestion,  or  it  would  have  been 
made. 

MR.  MORAN:  If  it  had  been  made  earlier  it 
would  have  been  answered. 

MR.  HARRISON  :  This  provision  is  written  on 
the  face  of  the  statute,  and  no  argument  by  which 
you  have  supported  an  inheritance  or  succession 
tax  includes  these  transactions  inter  vivos.  How 
could  the  state  escheat  such  property?  When  the 
black-robed  usher  is  seen  on  the  distant  hill,  does  a 
state  of  incapacity  to  dispose  of  property  begin  at 
once?  Are  men  to  be  restrained  from  giving  ex 
ercise  to  those  natural  affections  with  which  God 


3<D2  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

has  endowed  them,  and  from  the  discharge  of  those 
duties  which  the  domestic  relations  lay  upon  them? 

A  succession  or  transfer  tax  may  be  supported 
upon  principles  that  may  well  include  gifts  and 
conveyances  inter  vivos,  if  there  be  nothing  in  the 
constitution  of  the  state  to  prohibit  it — if  it  be  not 
a  tax  on  property,  or  be  not  unequally  laid.  We 
are  not  here  to  deny  that  the  state  may,  as  the 
United  States  did  during  the  war,  lay  a  tax  upon 
conveyances  and  transfers  inter  vivos  and  upon  tes 
tamentary  conveyances  or  dispositions  and  upon  in 
heritances. 

I  have  answered  sufficiently,  I  think,  the  sugges 
tion  that  a  part  of  this  law  may  be  stricken  out  as 
unconstitutional — the  tax  on  strangers — and  the  tax 
on  the  near  relatives  be  preserved.  Your  honors 
know  that  that  was  not  within  the  contemplation  of 
the  legislature  of  Illinois;  and  that  this  law  as  to 
ante-mortem  gifts  can  not  be  supported  upon  the 
propositions  the  gentlemen  have  contended  for. 

It  may  be  true,  as  the  opposing  counsel  have 
suggested,  that  we  should  apologize  to  the  court  for 
occupying  its  time  in  discussing  the  questions 
whether  there  is  a  natural  right  of  inheritance,  or  a 
natural  right  of  testamentary  disposition.  But  if 
your  honors  please,  I  think  if  we  will  pause  for  a 
moment  to  contemplate  the  condition  in  which  so 
ciety  would  find  itself  if  this  monstrous  power  for 
which  my  friend  contends  were  exercised  by  the  leg- 


INHERITANCE   TAX    CASES  303 

islature  of  any  of  our  states,  we  should  find  a  justi 
fication  for  this  discussion.  In  forming  their  insti 
tutions,  their  national  government  and  their  state 
governments  and  constitutions,  our  people  were 
careful  to  insert  in  bills  of  rights  or  in  the  bodies 
of  their  constitutions  many  limitations  upon  each  of 
the  departments  of  government.  And,  if  your  hon 
ors  please,  these  bills  of  rights  are  not  subject  to 
the  rule  "expressio  unius."  That  rule  may  apply 
to  grants  that  are  made  and  to  powers  that  are  con 
ferred,  but  surely  this  court  will  not  say — it  has 
often  said  the  contrary — that  there  are  not  rights 
reserved  to  the  people  beyond  and  above  the  special 
reservations  of  the  constitutions  and  the  special  dec 
larations  of  the  bills  of  rights.  There  are  things 
that  are  inherent  in  our  system  of  government;  that 
were  born  with  our  very  institutions :  rights  of  prop 
erty;  rights  of  persons;  rights  that  do  not  find  such 
expression — do  not  need  to  find  such  expression. 
As  to  tax  laws  and  as  to  all  laws  affecting  individual 
rights  and  liberties,  the  laws  that  are  made  by  our 
states  are  to  be  read  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  our 
government  was  builded  and  established  for  the  pro 
tection  of  the  individual,  and  upon  the  principle  run 
ning  through  every  part  of  its  structure  that  men 
shall  be  equal  before  the  law — an  equality  of  rights 
and  burdens. 

Now  let  us  suppose  for  one  moment  that  the  state 
of  Illinois  should  repeal  its  law  of  wills  and  its  law 


304  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

of  descents.  My  learned  friend  thinks  it  may  do 
so  without  violating  any  right.  He  thinks  that  it 
would  not  be  an  immoral  thing;  that  it  would  not 
infringe  any  natural  right;  that  it  would  not  be  a 
thing  that  could  be  condemned  upon  any  principle 
of  human  justice  or  right,  if  they  were  to  repeal 
those  laws  and,  by  eliminating  all  heirs,  bring  into 
force  the  doctrine  of  escheat  and  so  take  to  the  state 
all  the  property  within  its  borders  owned  by  its  own 
citizens,  and  all  the  property  within  its  borders 
owned  by  citizens  of  other  states.  No  immorality,  no 
natural  right  transgressed,  nothing  that  should  be 
shocking  to  our  natural  instincts,  nothing  inconsistent 
with  the  principles  of  free  government!  That  is  the 
doctrine  proclaimed  here.  After  all  the  care  we 
have  taken  in  forming  our  governments;  after  all 
the  limitations  which  we  find  in  the  constitution 
of  Illinois — to  which  I  shall  presently  refer — 
requiring  that  all  tax  burdens  upon  property 
shall  be  equal;  after  all  those  limitations  for  the  pro 
tection  of  the  individual,  that  no  man's  services 
and  no  man's  property,  however  insignificant  the 
amount  may  be,  shall  be  taken  without  due  process 
of  law  and  without  compensation — after  all  those 
precautions  intended  to  secure  men  in  their  prop 
erty  rights — have  things  been  left  by  the  careless 
ness  of  our  statesmen  in  such  a  position  that  a  cas 
ual  and  communistic  legislature  of  Illinois  may  take 
the  entire  body  of  individual  property,  which  has 


INHERITANCE    TAX    CASES  305 

been  guarded  so  carefully  in  other  particulars,  at 
the  death  of  each  owner?  Have  we  constructed 
our  system  of  government  upon  a  principle  that 
leaves  it  in  the  power  of  each  legislature  to  estab 
lish  state  ownership  of  all  property?  Have  we  been 
careful  about  small  fractions  and  yet  left  the  body 
of  our  property  rights,  and  our  most  cherished  so 
cial  and  family  rights,  in  such  a  condition  that  the 
legislature  of  a  state  has  the  power  to  destroy  them 
all  without  guilt  or  moral  dereliction  or  the  trans 
gression  of  any  natural  right  or  political  principle? 
Is  that  the  situation  we  are  found  in? 

MR.  JUSTICE  BROWN:  Suppose  the  legislature  of 
Illinois  should  do  that,  and  a  man  should  die  leav 
ing  a  wife  and  father  and  mother  and  brothers  and 
sisters — 

MR.  HARRISON  :  Will  your  honor  allow  me  to  in 
terpolate  child? 

MR.  JUSTICE  BROWN:  No;  I  would  like  to  have 
an  answer  to  the  question  as  put.  In  what  propor 
tion  would  you  divide  the  property? 

MR.  HARRISON:  I  shall  come  to  that  after  a 
while,  if  you  honor  will  allow  me.  I  do  not  say 
that  these  natural  laws  have  all  been  written  out; 
that  the  details  of  them  are  expressed.  That  is  for 
the  legislature  to  do.  The  federal  constitution,  in 
recognition  of  these  natural  laws,  established  be 
yond  cavil  the  natural  right  of  property.  By  so  do 
ing  it  established,  as  essential  attributes  of  property, 


306  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

the  natural  rights  of  inheritance  and  testamentary 
disposition;  and  to  the  states  was  wisely  left  the  dis 
cretion  of  choosing  between  them  according  to 
state  policy.  But  it  is  not  an  arbitrary  discretion; 
it  is  one  that  is  to  be  exercised  on  the  lines  of  nature 
and  those  family  obligations  and  relations  which 
have  characterized  its  exercise  from  the  beginning. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  inquire  within  what  degrees 
of  relationship  natural  rights  of  inheritance  may  be 
confined,  nor  is  it  necessary  to  declare  that  such 
rights  may  not  extend  to  the  remotest  relations. 
That  there  may  exist  amongst  near  rela 
tions  various  degrees  of  natural  rights,  and  that 
different  rights  to  acquire  by  inheritance  may  be  ac 
corded  to  different  degrees  of  distant  relations,  are 
self-evident  facts.  These  instances  present  essential 
differences  furnishing  a  just  basis  for  classification. 
But,  if  the  statutes  of  wills  and  descents  should  be 
repealed,  this  court  would  find  some  sound  basis  of 
protection  in  the  revival  of  the  doctrine  of  post  obit 
gifts  and  conveyances  or  in  the  doctrine  of  family 
ownership.  These  statutes  of  descents  and  wills 
are  but  the  evidence  of  presumed  and  effectuated  in 
tention. 

Let  us  look  a  little  further.  May  I  ask  my 
learned  friend,  if  the  matter  of  heirship  is  so  purely 
arbitrary,  whether  the  last  legislature  of  Illinois 
might  declare  that  the  members  elected  to  that  leg 
islature  should  be  the  heirs  to  the  property  of  all 


INHERITANCE   TAX    CASES  307 

persons  dying  within  the  state  of  Illinois?  If  the 
designation  of  heirs  is  purely  an  arbitrary  thing;  if 
the  child  has  no  natural  right,  nor  the  wife,  nor  the 
brother,  and  the  legislature  has  absolute  power  and 
arbitrary  discretion,  as  he  has  told  us,  why  may  not 
the  legislature  name  its  own  members  as  the  heirs? 
If  the  sessions  of  the  legislature  are  biennial,  they 
might  take  unto  themselves  a  good  deal  of  prop 
erty  before  the  statute  could  be  repealed.  The  doc 
trine  is  stated  just  as  broadly  as  that.  The  legis 
lature  may  do  what  it  pleases;  may  take  it  all. 
There  is  no  natural  or  fundamental  right:  They 
may  name  anybody  to  be  heir,  or  they  may  name 
no  one.  And  yet,  if  your  honors  please,  I  think 
the  courts  would  find  some  way  to  dispose  of  legis 
lation  that  names  strangers  as  heirs,  and  cuts  out 
those  nearest  of  kin.  Does  my  honorable  friend  be 
lieve  that  the  courts  of  Illinois  would  sustain  a 
statute  of  descent  that  shut  out  child  and  wife  and 
substituted  strangers  to  be  heirs  to  the  estate?  I 
can  not  believe  that  he  does  or  that  he  would  affirm 
such  a  power  in  terms.  And  yet  his  whole  argu 
ment  imports  that  the  power  is  just  as  despotic  and 
arbitrary  as  that.  What  has  become — what  will  be 
come — upon  this  theory,  of  all  our  classification  of 
real  estate  titles?  What  kind  of  a  fee-simple  did 
the  gentleman  have  in  mind  when  he  said  that  the 
owner  could  only  hold  for  life;  that  no  heir  could 
take  it;  but  that  he  might  during  his  life  give  it  to 


308  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

some  other  man  who  might  hold  it  during  his  life? 
What  did  those  old  patents  of  the  United  States, 
under  which  all  the  land  of  Illinois  is  held,  mean, 
when  they  granted  a  section  or  a  quarter  section 
of  land  to  those  hardy  settlers  and  to  their  "heirs 
and  assigns  forever"? 

MR.  MORAN:     Could  not  he  alienate  it? 

MR.  HARRISON:  Alienate  it?  Of  course.  So 
could  any  grantee  alienate  it.  But  the  fact  that  it 
was  inheritable — that  if  he  died  without  disposing 
of  it  and  without  making  any  testamentary  disposi 
tion  of  it,  it  should  go  to  his  heirs — was  a  part  of  the 
grant.  But  it  is  said  those  heirs  were  not  defined  in 
the  patent.  It  did  not  say  his  children;  it  did  not 
say  his  wife;  it  did  not  say  his  brother.  That  was 
left  to  those  modifications  and  regulations  which 
the  conscience  of  the  states  and  the  character  of 
their  political  and  social  and  property  organizations 
might  justify  the  legislature  in  making.  It  did  cer 
tainly  involve  something  more  than  a  life  estate 
which  might  be  transmuted  into  the  life  estate  of 
somebody  else  at  the  pleasure  of  the  state  and  taken 
at  last  absolutely  by  the  state.  Can  the  title  given 
by  the  United  States  be  cut  off  by  the  state  of  Illi 
nois  by  its  refusing  to  define  who  the  heirs  shall  be, 
and  so  taking  the  property  itself?  Such  a  doctrine 
as  that  would  paralyze  all  thrift  and  industry.  Why 
should  men  work  and  wear  out  their  strength  in  ac 
cumulating  property  if  it  has  no  family  perpetua- 


INHERITANCE   TAX    CASES  309 

tion?  Suppose  such  a  law  to  be  enacted  in  Illinois 
as  the  gentleman  defends;  would  not  the  universal 
rule  of  the  state  be  "Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  to 
morrow  we  die"?  All  of  the  stimulus  of  thrift 
would  be  destroyed  by  the  admission  of  such  a  doc 
trine  as  that.  What  is  it  that  makes  a  father  care 
ful?  He  has  married  a  wife;  he  has  brought  a 
child  into  life,  and  his  care  of  them  is  not  limited 
by  his  own  life.  The  care  and  the  duty  project 
themselves  beyond  his  grave;  and  he  feels  that  he 
must — not  that  it  is  a  privilege,  but  a  duty  growing 
out  of  a  family  relation — that  he  must  make  pro 
vision  for  them.  Does  the  gentleman  believe  that 
a  man  may  not  provide  for  his  infant  child  when 
he  dies;  that  every  child  is  to  become  a  foundling 
dependent  upon  the  charity  of  the  state? 

MR.  MORAN:  This  is  not  the  sort  of  law  you 
are  attacking. 

MR.  HARRISON:  I  am  attacking  a  principle  that 
you  have  set  up  to  support  this  law;  the  ground 
upon  which  you  defend  this  arbitrary  and  unequal 
legislation,  that  a  state  may,  without  any  breach  of 
natural  law  or  denial  of  fundamental  rights,  take  to 
itself  all  property.  I  will  speak  of  this  particular 
law  presently.  You  can  only  defend  and  uphold 
this  law  by  this  principle  which  you  have  proclaimed 
with  such  assured  confidence.  I  am  trying  now  to 
show  the  court  what  effects  the  application  of  this 
principle  would  have  upon  the  communities  in 


3IO  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

which  we  live.  The  family  relation  would  be  brok 
en;  whatever  obligation,  whatever  bond  of  duty,  the 
expectancy  of  property  places  upon  the  child  would 
be  broken.  The  parent  would  have  no  motive  to  ac 
cumulate.  The  wife  would  be  without  provision. 
American  society,  American  institutions  are  found 
ed  on  the  American  home  in  which  the  father  and 
protector  of  the  family  is  also  its  provider;  and  not 
its  provider  only  while  he  lives,  but  is  to  make  for 
the  helpless  and  dependent  a  provision  which  they 
shall  enjoy  when  he  dies.  Are  all  the  benefits  that 
come  to  the  state  from  family  association,  traditions 
and  descents  to  be  destroyed?  Here  stands  a  ven 
erable  man  who  has  accumulated  property  through 
years  of  toil.  Death  draws  near.  The  pulses  of 
life  beat  slowly  and  with  the  courage  of  a  Christian 
faith  he  looks  into  the  grave.  But  he  may  not  call 
his  son  and  bestow  upon  him  the  heirlooms  of  the 
family.  He  may  not  take  from  above  the  mantel 
shelf  the  sword  he  wielded  in  his  country's  defense 
and  put  it  into  the  hands  of  his  stalwart  son  that 
he  may,  in  his  generation,  wield  it  also  for  his  coun 
try.  The  state  is  to  take  it  all.  There  is  no  natural 
right.  The  heirlooms,  the  old  homestead,  hallowed 
by  family  associations,  the  place  of  birth  that  has 
in  it  not  only  so  much  of  sweetness,  but  so  much 
wholesomeness  and  restraint — these  go  to  the  state. 
Its  agent,  the  moment  the  spirit  of  that  faithful  man 
has  taken  its  flight,  steps  into  that  abode  and  lays 


INHERITANCE   TAX    CASES  311 

his  hand  upon  all  these  things  and  carries  them  off 
to  be  at  the  disposal  of  the  legislature  of  Illinois. 
Our  social  state,  the  property  relation  as  we  esteem 
it,  all  our  business  is  builded  upon  the  idea  that  a 
man's  children  and  kin  shall  take  that  which  he 
has  accumulated.  Can  it  be  possible,  I  repeat  again, 
after  all  the  care  we  have  shown,  in  protecting  our 
property  and  our  civilization,  that  the  only  thing 
that  stands  between  us  and  an  absolute  state  of  so 
cialism  is  the  passage  of  a  law  that  any  casual 
legislature  of  Illinois  may  enact? 

I  have,  as  doubtless  all  the  justices  have,  tried 
some  will  cases.  I  have  no  doubt  that  some  of  your 
honors,  upon  the  benches  of  the  state  courts,  have 
instructed  juries  in  will  cases  where  testamentary 
incapacity  was  alleged;  and  what  is  the  test?  First, 
did  the  man  have  sufficient  memory  and  intelligence 
to  recall  his  property,  to  know  his  possessions;  and 
secondly,  did  he  have  sufficient  intelligence  and 
memory  to  recall  those  who  had  natural  claims 
upon  him  and  to  measure  their  just  deserts?  What 
has  been  meant  by  the  courts  in  these  instructions? 
So  thoroughly  has  this  doctrine  of  the  right  of  a 
child  ordinarily  to  inherit,  subject  to  testamentary 
dispositions  and  to  apportionment  in  particular  cases, 
where  the  love  or  the  duty  or  the  service  rendered 
by  one  child  may  authorize  distinctions — so  thor 
oughly  has  this  idea  been  instilled  into  the  minds  of 
what  Mr.  Lincoln  called  "the  plain  people," — that 


312  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

if  you  go  into  your  own  state,  sir  (turning  to  Mr. 
Moran),  and  empanel  a  jury  to  try  such  an  issue 
and  it  is  proved  that  the  testator  had  declared  his 
views  of  the  family  relation  and  of  his  obligations 
to  be  such  as  have  been  proclaimed  here,  the  jury 
will  find  the  testator  to  be  non  compos — incapable 
of  making  a  will.  The  man  who  would  say  in  con 
nection  with  the  making  of  a  testament,  that  he  did 
not  think  anybody's  children  had  any  natural  right 
to  share  in  a  father's  estate;  that  they  stood  in  the 
same  relation  as  strangers — 

MR.  MORAN:  Would  he  not  have  a  right  to 
give  all  his  property  to  strangers? 

MR.  HARRISON  :  Undoubtedly,  if  he  was  of  sound 
mind.  But  in  all  such  cases  these  tests  would  be 
applied;  and  in  that  case  it  would  be  asked  how  he 
came  to  give  it  all  to  strangers.  If  it  could  be  proved 
that  he  had  said,  in  connection  with  the  making 

T» 

of  his  will,  what  has  been  said  in  this  court,  there 
is  not  a  jury  in  any  of  our  states  that  would  not 
return  a  verdict  that  he  was  of  unsound  mind. 
Such  a  verdict  would  be  inevitable  under  such  in 
structions  as  the  courts  give  in  all  these  cases,  viz.: 
that  the  testator  must  appreciate  the  natural  claims 
upon  him.  Does  the  gentleman  say  there  are  no 
natural  claims?  Has  the  wife  no  natural  claims? 
How  does  it  come,  then,  that  in  your  state,  sir,  as 
in  mine  and  in  all  of  the  states,  I  think,  the  provis 
ion  made  by  law  for  the  wife  takes  precedence  of 


INHERITANCE   TAX    CASES  313 

creditors?  There  is  a  share  of  the  estate  set  apart 
to  her  that  can  not  be  touched  by  creditors.  Will 
the  distinguished  gentleman  tell  me  upon  what  basis 
that  allowance  can  be  sustained  if  she  has  no  natural 
claim?  The  creditor  has,  he  will  allow,  a  claim  that 
justice  must  recognize;  but  I  do  not  know  how  a 
creditor  would  realize  his  debt  if  administration 
was  not  regulated  by  the  states;  I  do  not  know  how 
a  man  could  recover  property  that  was  taken  from 
him  in  life  if  the  law  did  not  provide  writs  of  re 
plevin  and  sheriffs.  Because  these  things  are  pro 
vided  by  legislation  it  does  not  follow  that  the  leg 
islation  may  be  arbitrary,  or  the  rights  given  or 
regulated  be  taxed  as  privileges.  It  is  an  old  maxim 
of  the  law  that  no  one  is  heir  to  the  living;  but  we 
have  had  an  extension  of  the  maxim. 

The  conclusion  would  not  follow,  however,  even 
if  this  monstrous  doctrine  were  admitted,  that  this 
law  is  valid,  because  the  state  must  deal  with  all 
its  citizens,  not  only  in  tax  matters,  but  in  all  mat 
ters  of  grace  and  privilege,  upon  principles  of  equal 
ity.  The  grace  of  a  republican  state  is  not  a  whim. 
An  eastern  despot  may  take  property  from  one  and 
give  it  to  another  upon  a  whim,  but  the  legislature 
of  Illinois  may  not  take  or  give  in  that  way.  When 
it  attempts  to  show  its  grace  in  the  matter  of  testa 
mentary  disposition  it  can  not  create  arbitrary 
classes  and  consequent  inequality;  its  grace  must  pro- 


314  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

ceed   upon   that   principle   of   equality   which    must 
pervade  all  legislation. 

The  basis  of  citizenship — the  political  relation  on 
which  our  government  is  founded — is  that  of  equal 
ity  of  burden  and  of  right.  All  men  may  15e  re 
quired  to  contribute  of  their  property  to  the  state; 
if  it  is  necessary  for  the  public  service,  they  may  be 
called  upon  to  give  their  lives  for  the  state;  but  it 
must  be  proportionately  and  upon  some  principle  of 
selection — by  lot  for  the  draft,  by  rate  and  appor 
tionment,  if  property  is  to  be  taxed.  You  may  not 
take  at  one  rate  from  one  and  at  another  rate  from 
another  of  the  same  class;  you  may  not  exact  a 
higher  rate  from  one  than  from  another.  You  may 
make  taxes  ratably  upon  some  principle  of  propor 
tion  and  equality.  The  intent  to  reach  that  end 
must  be  found  in  every  valid  tax  law.  I  do  not  say 
that  the  law  must  or  can  be  perfectly  equal  in  ad 
ministration.  I  do  not  say  that  inequalities  may 
not  arise,  of  a  minor  sort,  under  every  tax  law;  but 
I  do  say  that  the  aim  and  the  purpose  of  such  legisla 
tion  must  be  to  put  an  equal  burden  upon  every  cit 
izen  who  is  called  upon  to  contribute.  This  prin 
ciple  is  the  very  breath  of  our  free  institutions. 
What  other  defense  has  the  minority,  if,  as  is 
claimed  in  this  case,  a  tax  upon  successions  may  be 
fixed  at  any  amount  and  be  limited  to  particular 
classes,  based  on  value  or  wealth?  The  whole  rev 
enue  of  the  state  might  be  levied  in  Illinois  upon  a 


INHERITANCE   TAX    CASES  315 

score  or  two  of  people,  and  all  the  rest  of  the  pop 
ulation  exempted  from  any  burden  of  taxation. 

I  do  not  contemplate  with  satisfaction  the  accu 
mulation  of  great  wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  few  in 
dividuals;  but  to  prevent  it  I  would  not  destroy  the 
very  foundations  upon  which  our  institutions  rest. 
Least  of  all  can  those  who  have  not  wealth  consent 
that  there  shall  be  introduced  into  our  tax  legisla 
tion  an  arbitrary  principle  that  may  assess  burdens 
now  for  the  purpose — I  think  disclosed  in  the  brief 
and  confessed  in  the  argument  of  the  honorable 
counsel,  to  be  one  of  the  objects  of  the  law — of  dis 
persing  property,  for  this  arbitrary  power  will  at  an 
other  time  turn  and  rend  those  who  install  it.  As 
we  have  said  in  our  brief,  during  the  French  revo 
lution  they  classified  one  degree  of  wealth  as  "super 
fluous"  and  took  it  all.  I  submit  to  my  friend  and 
to  every  right-thinking  man  whether  we  should  not 
pay  a  fearful  cost  for  the  small  relief  we  might  get 
from  tax  burdens  if  we  should  introduce  into  our  leg 
islation  a  principle  like  that  for  which  he  contends. 
This  equality  of  burden,  making  every  man,  according 
to  his  means,  a  contributor  to  the  expenses  of  the 
state,  is  one  of  the  most  wholesome  things  in  our 
civil  institutions.  It  is  the  paying  citizen  who  is 
the  watchful  citizen.  What  would  the  people  of 
Illinois  care  what  expenditures  were  made  by  the 
legislature  if  the  entire  amount  were  levied  upon 
twenty  wealthy  men  in  that  state?  The  best  assur- 


3l6  VIEWS   OF   AN  EX-PRESIDENT 

ance  of  honesty  and  integrity  and  economy  in  pub 
lic  expenditure,  is  in  a  wide  distribution  of  the  bur 
dens  of  taxation — because  the  man  who  pays 
watches. 

The  provisions  of  the  constitution  of  Illinois  upon 
the  subject  of  equality  are  very  explicit  and  very 
full.  I  do  not  think  the  constitution  of  any  of  our 
states  contains  any  more  careful  provision  for  se 
curing  an  equality  in  taxation.  As  to  property 
taxes,  it  requires  that  every  person  and  corporation 
shall  pay  a  tax  in  proportion  to  the  value  of  his, 
her  or  its  property.  As  to  some  specific  callings 
which  are  named,  and  among  which  we  find  the 
words  "franchises"  and  "privileges,"  it  is  required 
that  the  tax  shall  be  uniform  as  to  the  class  upon 
which  it  operates:  The  legislature  is  then  given 
power  to  tax  other  subjects,  but  only  in  such  man 
ner  as  is  consistent  with  the  principles  of  equality 
fixed  by  the  preceding  section. 

The  supreme  court  of  Illinois  has  said  that  it  is 
a  privilege  that  is  taxed  by  the  law  under  consid 
eration.  Your  honors  will  not  think  so  when  you 
read  the  law.  The  law,  I  think,  clearly  levies  a  tax 
on  property.  I  know  there  have  been  decisions  in 
these  succession  tax  cases  wherein  it  was  said  that 
because  a  lien  for  the  tax  is  created  on  property 
that  does  not  make  it  a  property  tax;  but  here  every 
expression  in  the  law  shows  that  it  is  a  property 
tax.  The  word  "privilege"  is  not  found  in  the  law. 


INHERITANCE   TAX    CASES  317 

What  does  it  say?  "All  property,  real,  personal  and 
mixed,  which  shall  pass  by  will  *  *  *  shall  be 
and  is  subject  to  a  tax  at  the  rate  of  one  dollar  on 
on  every  hundred  dollars."  That  is  what  the  law 
says;  and  not  only  that,  but  at  another  place  it  says 
the  tax  is  to  be  on  the  value  of  this  property.  Run 
ning  through  every  section  of  the  law,  the  taxing 
section  as  well  as  the  sections  relating  to  adminis 
tration,  is  the  declaration  that  it  is  a  tax  on  property. 
In  the  case  of  Maine  v.  Grand  Trunk  and  I  think 
in  the  Home  Insurance  Case  and  others,  this  court 
has  held  taxes  not  to  be  a  tax  on  interstate  com 
merce,  because  the  law  said  it  was  a  tax  on  the 
franchise;  and  if  it  had  not  been  for  that  declara 
tion  your  honors  must  have  held  in  the  one  case 
that  it  was  a  tax  on  earnings,  and  in  the  other  on 
property.  Here  we  have  a  law  that  declares  the  tax 
levied  to  be  a  tax  on  property,  not  once,  but  many 
times;  and  as  such  it  is  subject  to  the  rule  of  uni 
formity  to  which  I  have  referred  in  the  constitu 
tion  of  Illinois.  All  these  provisions  for  equality 
are  now  guaranteed  by  the  United  States  in  the 
fourteenth  amendment.  As  Professor  Burgess 
says,  the  United  States,  by  the  passage  of  that 
amendment,  ceased  to  occupy  the  position  of  a  mere 
"passive,  non-infringer  of  individual  liberty,"  and 
assumed  the  position  of  "an  active  defender  of  the 
same  against  the  tyranny  of  the  commonwealths 
themselves." 


318  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  discuss  the  breadth  and 
reach  of  that  great  amendment.  It  is  enough  to 
say  that  for  protection  against  the  passion  of  the 
state,  against  any  temporary  movement  that  may 
wrest  the  people  or  the  legislature  of  a  state  away 
from  this  great  rule  of  equality  and  fairness  to 
which  I  have  referred,  we  no  longer  rest  solely  on 
the  guarantees  of  the  state  constitution,  but  on  the 
federal  constitution  as  well. 

The  ordinary  tax  which  our  states  have  used  is 
the  property  tax,  and  my  friend  defends  in  part  the 
method  of  taxation  introduced  by  this  law  upon  the 
ground  that  at  death  the  state  can  lay  its  hands  upon 
property  which  during  the  life  of  the  owner  has 
avoided  taxation  by  false  returns.  I  recognize  and 
condemn  quite  as  strongly  as  my  friend  this  secre 
ting  of  property  from  the  public  assessor.  It  is  a 
crime  against  the  state;  and  the  man  who  hides  his 
property  in  order  that  it  may  escape  its  fair  share 
of  the  public  burdens  is  a  malefactor.  He  is  of  kin 
to  the  man  who  skulks  when  the  call  comes  to  fight 
for  his  country;  and  the  man  who  dodges  about 
from  one  state  to  another  to  escape  taxation  is  of 
kin  to  the  man  who  sought  Canada  during  the  civil 
war  in  order  to  avoid  a  patriotic  duty.  There  is 
such  an  evil — a  very  great  one — but  it  is  not  to  be 
cured  in  this  way.  Are  we  to  admit  that  our  leg 
islatures  and  our  administrative  officers  are  inade 
quate  to  the  duty  of  preventing  the  secreting  of 


INHERITANCE   TAX    CASES  319 

stocks  and  securities  from  the  tax  list?  I  do  not 
think  any  legislation  can  be  too  severe  that  will  bring 
the  recreant  citizen  to  his  duty.  I  have  no  patience 
whatever  with  this  too  much  talk  about  the  privacy 
of  one's  own  affairs — that  the  state  must  not  inquire 
into  private  business.  Under  our  association  as  citi 
zens  we  are  partners.  We  have  come  under  obliga 
tions  to  share  equally  the  burdens  of  government; 
and  you  have  a  right  to  know  whether  I  am  paying 
my  share  or  not.  You  have  a  right  to  demand  that 
I  shall  make  a  disclosure  of  what  I  have.  I  should 
not  think  it  too  severe  a  penalty  for  this  prevalent 
offense  if,  in  the  exercise  of  their  rightful  power, 
the  legislatures  were  to  enact  that  a  legatee  should 
not  take  any  property  that  the  testator  had  fraud 
ulently  concealed  from  the  assessor.  If  one  repu 
diates  the  ownership  of  property  for  a  series  of 
years  in  his  tax  returns  it  might  very  well  be  re 
garded  as  an  estoppel  when  the  legatee  claims  it. 
But  the  law  now  under  consideration  is  not  a  rem 
edy  for  the  evil. 

The  Massachusetts  tax  commission  have  recently 
submitted  a  report  to  the  governor  of  that  state 
recommending  that  the  property  tax,  by  reason  of 
the  difficulty  of  collecting  it,  should  be  abolished, 
and  an  inheritance  tax  and  some  other  taxes  sub 
stituted.  My  friend  would  not  agree  to  the  aboli 
tion  of  the  property  tax,  and  he  would  be  right.  A 
succession  tax  ought  not  to  be  made  a  substitute  for 


32O  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

the  personal  property  tax.  The  faults  and  defects 
in  the  administration  of  one  law  ought  not  to  be 
the  reason  for  enacting  another  founded  on  inequal 
ity.  The  proposition  for  which  we  contend  does 
not  shut  out  the  state  of  Illinois  from  levying  an 
equal  and  fair  tax  upon  inheritances  and  succes 
sions  unless  it  is  a  property  tax,  and  so  double  tax 
ation  under  the  constitution  of  the  state.  The  gen 
tleman  does  not  speak  to  the  record  when  he  inti 
mates  that  we  represent  people  who  desire  to  be  ex 
empt  from  any  tax.  Those  we  represent,  and  in  that 
they  represent  the  common  interests,  are  only  anx 
ious  that  this  tax  shall  be  put  upon  a  basis  of  equal 
ity  and  predicated  upon  a  principle  that  is  not  de 
structive  of  all  our  social  relations  and  all  our  prop 
erty  interests. 

As  to  exemptions,  the  gentleman  says,  with  great 
emphasis,  What  is  reasonable?  Who  is  going  to 
say?  Well,  how  does  the  legislature  say?  It  is 
bound  to  make  them  reasonable.  It  is  under  pre 
cisely  the  same  difficulty  that  the  court  is.  There 
is  no  fixed  rule.  We  can  not  say  that  only  so  much 
may  be  exempt  in  any  case;  we  must  look  at  the 
amount  of  an  exemption  and  see  whether  it  is  one 
that  is  established  for  a  public  purpose ;  whether  there 
is  a  public  reason  to  support  it.  In  other  words, 
everybody  should  be  interested  that  the  exemption 
be  made.  It  should  not  be  a  favor  to  the  class  or 
individual  exempted.  The  exemption  should  rest 


INHERITANCE   TAX    CASES  321 

upon  some  public  consideration  that  would  author 
ize  it  as  in  the  interest  of  all.  For  instance,  upon 
the  theory  that  it  may  cost  more  than  it  is  worth  to 
collect  it;  or  upon  the  theory  that  by  taking  from 
those  of  very  small  means  we  are  liable  to  take  from 
them  the  power  to  make  a  living  and  thus  throw 
the  burden  of  their  support  on  the  community.  But 
when  exemptions  are  plainly  resorted  to  for  favorit 
ism;  when  they  are  based  upon  individual  favor 
and  a  bonus  to  the  majority,  and  not  upon  any  pub 
lic  consideration;  when  it  appears  that  they  are 
used  as  a  means  of  classifying  by  values,  then  this 
court  will  say,  that  while  there  is  a  legislative  dis 
cretion  to  do  what  is  reasonable,  that  is  not  reason 
able  and  we  will  not  sustain  it. 

As  to  this  exemption  of  $20,000  to  each  legatee 
of  the  first  class.  It  might  result  in  exempting  an 
estate  of  $250,000  wholly  from  taxation  if  there 
were  heirs  enough  to  take  it  in  portions  of  $20,000. 
That  is  the  method  of  classification  here;  it  is  noth 
ing  more  than  a  class  favor.  It  does  not  rest  upon 
and  can  not  be  supported  by  any  public  considera 
tion  whatever.  It  is  a  system  of  classification  upon 
values.  Now  it  is  interesting  to  note,  as  we  pass, 
that  the  constitution  of  Illinois,  as  to  the  tax  upon 
property,  does  not  allow  the  exemption  of  a  dollar 
— not  even  the  dray  and  the  old  horse  that  draws 
it.  So  exacting  is  the  law  that  every  man  must  pay 
according  to  the  value  of  what  he  has.  The  tax- 


322  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

gatherer  gets  his  return  if  it  is  only  ten  dollars. 
The  constitution  allows  the  property  of  churches 
and  schools  and  property  used  for  charitable  and 
such  like  purposes  to  be  exempted;  and  the  supreme 
court  of  Illinois  has  held  that  this  provision  ex 
cludes  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  exempt  any 
thing  else  or  any  other  person  from  taxation;  that 
the  legislature  of  Illinois  can  not  exempt  so  much 
as  ten  dollars,  under  the  constitution  of  that  state, 
from  the  property  tax.  When  we  look  at  the  ex 
emptions  in  this  law  we  see  that  they  were  mani 
festly  conferred  as  favors;  that  they  were  resorted 
to  as  means  of  classification;  that  they  can  not  be 
rested  upon  any  public  consideration;  that  they 
were  intended  to  free  the  great  bulk  of  individual 
property  and  of  individuals  from  any  tax. 

As  to  these  exemptions  and  their  character,  a  word 
or  two  more.  There  is  a  curious  sort  of  classifi 
cation  here.  The  first  class  consists  not  only  of  lin- 
eals  ascending  and  descending,  but  of  collaterals. 
It  embraces  brothers  and  sisters.  To  that  class 
there  is  allowed,  to  each  person  taking  a  legacy  or 
an  inheritance,  an  exemption  of  $20,000.  The  first 
class  includes  father,  mother,  husband,  wife,  child, 
brother,  sister,  wife  or  widow  of  a  son,  or  husband 
of  a  daughter,  or  any  child  or  children  adopted,  or 
any  lineal  descendant  born  in  lawful  wedlock.  So 
that  if  there  were  twenty  legatees  an  estate  of 
twenty  times  $20,000 — or  $400,000 — would  be 


INHERITANCE  TAX    CASES  323 

wholly  exempted.  Upon  what  principle  can  this  be 
justified?  The  answer  in  the  appellee's  brief  and  in 
the  oral  argument  is  that  the  legislature  may  do 
that  in  order  to  disperse  estates.  It  is  a  curious 
fact  that  in  the  second  section  of  this  act,  in  attempt 
ing,  as  it  seems  to  me,  to  repeat  the  description  of 
the  first  class,  certain  members  of  that  class  are  left 
out.  I  refer  to  the  provision  in  reference  to  life  es 
tates  in  the  second  section.  Some  have  been  left 
out,  I  think  inadvertently.  I  wish  your  honors 
would  look  at  that  second  section.  All  life  estates 
devised  to  father,  mother,  husband,  wife,  brother, 
sister,  widow  of  a  son  or  a  lineal  descendant  of 
the  testator,  with  a  remainder  to  a  collateral  heir, 
are  exempt.  In  the  first  place,  I  want  to  call  your 
honors'  attention  to  the  amount  of  that  exemption. 
An  estate  for  ninety-nine  years  or  longer,  as  Mr. 
Guthrie  has  said,  given  to  one  of  the  persons 
named,  though  it  might  be  worth  $50,000  a  year 
in  rentals,  and  in  its  aggregate  value  millions  of 
dollars,  goes  wholly  without  taxation.  This  is  the 
most  senseless  and  incongruous  provision  that  I  ever 
saw  in  a  public  statute.  The  remainder  must  go  to 
a  collateral  or  to  a  stranger  in  order  to  free  the  life 
estate  or  estate  for  years  from  the  tax.  If  then  a 
man  left  a  life  estate  to  his  child  and  the  remainder 
to  his  grandchild,  the  life  estate  would  not  be  ex 
empt,  but  if  the  remainder  were  given  to  a  nephew 
it  would  be. 


324  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

MR.  MORAN:     I  think  you  misinterpret  the  law. 

MR.  HARRISON:  I  am  sure  I  do  not.  Let  us 
read  it.  "When  any  person  shall  bequeath  or  de 
vise  any  property  or  interest  therein  or  income 
therefrom  to  mother,  father,  husband,  wife,  broth 
er  and  sister,  the  widow  of  the  son  ('the  wife  of 
the  son'  is  left  out)  or  a  lineal  descendant  during 
the  life  or  for  a  term  of  years  or  remainder  to  the 
collateral  heir  of  the  decedent,  or  to  the  stranger 
in  blood  or  to  the  body  politic  or  corporate  at  their 
decease,  or  on  the  expiration  of  such  term,  the  said 
life  estate  or  estates  for  a  term  of  years  shall  not 
be  subject  to  any  tax."  What  is  the  condition? 
The  life  estate  to  one  of  the  persons  named,  the  re 
mainder  to  a  collateral.  Does  it  not  say  so?  Will 
the  gentleman  tell  me  what  other  possible  interpre 
tation  there  can  be?  I  am  sure  you  will  see,  when 
you  read  it,  that  the  life  estate  is  only  exempt 
when  the  remainder  goes  to  a  collateral,  but  that  is 
only  one  instance  of  the  incongruity  of  the  law.  In 
addition  to  the  $20,000  there  is  given  to  this  class 
an  exemption  of  property  that  may  run  up  into  the 
millions  in  value.  How  can  that  be  defended?  Only 
upon  the  principle  announced  by  appellee's  counsel 
that  it  is  not  a  tax  at  all — that  it  is  a  "bonus,"  and 
that  a  bonus  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  equality. 
They  say  to  people  of  this  class:  We  will  let  you 
devise  life  estates  of  any  value  free  of  tax,  but  if 


INHERITANCE   TAX    CASES  325 

you  want  to  devise  anything  else — any  other  form  of 
title — of  less  value,  you  must  pay  a  tax.  We  have 
here  exemptions  that  constitute  classifications  of 
property  that  are  based  upon  favoritism,  and  upon 
no  possible  public  consideration. 

I  now  come  to  the  progressive  features  of  this 
tax.  I  do  not  suppose  that  any  lawyer  would  de 
fend  a  progressive  tax  on  property  in  Illinois.  It 
is  defended  only  on  the  ground  that  succession  is 
a  privilege,  like  a  franchise  to  a  corporation,  as  if 
each  of  these  persons  were  coming  to  the  legisla 
ture  and  asking  the  privilege  to  take  as  heir  or  leg 
atee.  If  it  can  not  be  supported  upon  that  ground, 
and  is  not  also  free  from  the  further  limitation  I 
have  suggested,  that  even  acts  of  grace  must  be 
uniform,  then  progressive  taxation  will  find  no  de 
fense.  I  have  shown  that  in  the  constitution  of  Illi 
nois  the  idea  of  uniformity,  of  an  equal  rate,  is  the 
dominant  thought  in  the  tax  provisions.  Upon 
what  principle  can  it  be  said  that  a  man  shall  be  dis 
criminated  against  in  this  succession  tax  to  the 
amount  of  $100  because  he  gets  one  dollar,  or  even 
fifty  cents,  more  than  somebody  else?  If  there  is 
an  increase  of  rates  it  should  only  be  on  the  in 
creased  amounts,  the  same  sum  paying  always  the 
same  rate.  There  should  be  so  much  on  the  first 
ten  thousand  and  so  much  on  the  second,  if  any  pro 
gression  is  allowed,  and  that  is  an  extremely  dan- 


326  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

gerous  policy.  But  when  you  carry  the  increased 
rate  back  so  that  the  six  per  cent.,  payable  on  es 
tates  of  over  $50,000,  is  assessed  not  only  on  all 
above  that  amount,  but  on  the  first  $10,000  that  is 
taxed  at  three  per  cent,  and  the  $20,000  that  is 
taxed  at  four,  we  have  a  gross  abuse  of  the  power 
of  classification. 

I  want  to  say  a  word  about  classification,  and 
then  I  will  close.  The  supreme  court  of  Illinois 
says  this  law  makes  six  classes;  two  are  classifica 
tions  of  persons  upon  the  basis  of  kinship,  and  four 
are  said  to  be  classifications  of  property  on  the  basis  of 
value.  We  admit  the  principle  that  the  legislature  may 
classify  relationship  for  succession  taxes,  and  that 
only  uniformity  in  the  class  is  required.  But  if  the 
basis  of  classification  may  be  value  or  wealth,  you 
have  opened  the  way  to  absolutely  arbitrary  and  un 
restrained  taxation.  You  have  broken  down  every 
requirement  looking  to  equality  in  the  constitution 
of  Illinois  and  in  the  fourteenth  amendment.  You 
have  made  nugatory  this  great  charter,  the  protec 
tion  of  which  we  are  asking.  This  doctrine  of 
classification  appears  in  other  matters  than  tax  cases. 
In  many  of  the  states  we  have  laws  requiring  legis 
lation  to  be  general,  and  the  courts  have  said  that 
it  is  general  if  it  applies  to  a  class — as  to  cities  of  a 
certain  population.  Upon  that  basis  we  have  had 
legislation  with  reference  to  cities  of  the  first,  sec- 


INHERITANCE  TAX    CASES  327 

ond  and  third  class — according  to  population,  but 
always  so  that  a  city  of  the  second  class  may  come 
into  the  first  class  as  its  population  increases.  In 
the  Gulf  and  Colorado  case,  where  a  special  attor 
ney's  fee  of  only  ten  dollars  was  levied  in  certain 
suits  against  railroad  companies,  the  court  said: 
"You  have  not  adopted  an  admissible  classification; 
it  does  not  appear  that  there  is  any  reason  why  rail 
road  companies  should  pay  a  docket  fee  in  certain 
cases  and  nobody  else,"  and  the  court  declined  to 
assume  that  the  legislature  might  have  some  reason 
for  such  a  classification.  It  was  not  classification, 
and  the  law  was  declared  to  be  in  contravention  of 
the  fourteenth  amendment.  The  doctrine  declared 
over  and  over  again,  under  the  fourteenth  amend 
ment,  is  that  the  legislature  is  to  find  classes,  not 
make  them.  They  are  like  the  poets,  born  and  not 
made.  There  must  be  some  natural  distinction  and 
division;  something  that  actually  exists  before  the 
legislature  acts.  In  this  case  the  supreme  court  of 
Illinois  has  justified  a  classification  based  only  on 
wealth;  and  if  you  admit  that  as  applicable  to  gen 
eral  taxes,  then  I  repeat  that  every  provision  in 
tended  to  secure  equality  is  destroyed,  because  of 
the  evasive  and  illusive  answer  that  it  is  equal 
within  the  classes,  and  upon  a  division  that  the  leg 
islature  has  chosen  to  establish. 

It  seems,  then,  to  me — and  I  have  not  had  op- 


328  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PR£SIDENT 

portunity  or  time  to  read  to  your  honors  the  num 
erous  citations  which  appear  in  our  briefs — that 
this  right  of  inheritance  and  of  testamentary  dispo 
sition  is  natural  and  fundamental,  in  the  sense  we 
contend  for.  Blackstone — and  that  expression  of 
his  has  been  at  the  root  of  all  the  foolish  talk  that 
has  been  indulged  in — speaks  of  an  utterly  unor 
ganized  state,  when  there  was  no  society  at  all,  no- 
civil  government,  no  control,  each  man  for  himself. 
He  said  that  in  a  state  like  that  it  did  not  seem  to 
him  that  the  child  had  a  natural  right  to  take  the 
property  of  the  parent;  that  when  a  man  died  his 
property  was  res  nullius,  and  whoever  got  it  had  it. 
Possession  and  the  power  to  hold  it  was  ownership. 
It  is  because  there  is  no  law  that  he  keeps  who  can; 
he  gets  who  can.  But  the  authorities  we  have  cited 
show  that  from  the  dawn  of  history  in  the  earliest 
records,  both  these  rights  existed — the  testamen 
tary  right  and  the  right  of  inheritance.  The  right 
of  disposition  is  an  incident  of  property.  Property 
is  the  right  to  possess,  enjoy  and  dispose  of  a  thing. 
The  testamentary  right  seems  to  me  to  originate 
in  the  very  nature  of  property  and  to  be  an  incident 
of  it.  The  right  of  inheritance  goes  back  to  the 
beginning,  and  these  two  great  natural  rights  have 
come  down  to  us — sometimes  this  one  restrained 
and  the  other  given  greater  scope;  now  the  testamen 
tary  right  extending  only  to  a  third  of  one's  estate; 


INHERITANCE   TAX    CASES  329 

now  to  all;  and  now  the  testamentary  right  limited 
in  favor  of  the  widow,  so  that  her  portion  might 
be  secure.  These  great  natural  and  fundamental 
rights  are  both  recognized;  and  though  neither  of 
them  is  written  out  on  tables  of  stone,  they  are  both 
engraved  on  the  fleshy  tablets  of  every  man's  heart. 
They  have  both  come  down  to  us  from  the  earliest 
dawn  of  history.  It  does  not  militate  against  our 
proposition  that  these  are  natural  rights  because 
there  seems  to  be  a  conflict  between  them.  The 
one  can  not  wholly  prevail  without  destroying  the 
other.  The  statute  of  descents,  as  the  courts  have 
said  again  and  again,  is  the  expression  of  the  legis 
lature  upon  its  conscience  and  duty  as  to  what  is 
the  natural  law — as  to  what  should  be  the  natural 
intention  and  desire  of  a  testator.  The  legislature, 
taking  no  account  of  the  particular  family  relations 
in  which  service  and  duty,  or  insubordination  and 
rebellion  may  swerve  the  application  of  this  right 
one  way  or  the  other,  defines  it  as  applied  to  gen 
eral  cases.  The  family  relation  and  property  rights 
have  been  built  up  and  stand  upon  these  two  great 
natural  rights.  The  legislature  does  not  give  them; 
it  defines  them.  Perhaps  primogeniture  was  quite 
natural  in  feudal  times.  There  must  be  one  head 
of  the  castle,  that  the  duty  to  the  king  might  be 
discharged  and  the  defense  of  the  castle  made  good. 
In  every  state  of  society  there  is  this  reason  or  that, 


330  VIEWS  OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

why  some  preference  shall  be  given  to  one  or  to  the 
other;  but  both  have  survived  and  will  survive  as 
natural  rights.  When  they  cease  to  be  recognized 
as  natural  and  fundamental  rights,  we  shall  have 
dissolved  the  basis  on  which  society  rests. 


THE  OBLIGATIONS  OF  WEALTH 

Delivered  before  the  Union  League  Club,  Chicago,  February  22, 1898 

Monuments  and  birthday  anniversaries  should  be 
commemorative  of  virtues  that  are  still  imitable. 
Scientists  have  reproduced  some  of  the  gigantic 
animals  and  reptiles  of  the  world's  early  history. 
We  look  at  them  with  wonder  and  fear,  and  con 
gratulate  ourselves  that  they  are  extinct  types.  We 
have  no  needs  that  they  can  supply,  and  they  no 
shapes  or  habits  that  we  would  reproduce.  They 
could  not  live  in  our  environments,  nor  we  in  theirs. 

So  there  have  been  among  men  monsters  of  power 
and  violence.  We  can  not  forget  them;  but  we  are 
glad  that  they  lived  in  another  epoch.  The  almanac 
maker  notes  their  birthdays,  but  there  are  no  as 
semblages  of  the  people.  If  monuments  have  been 
builded  to  them,  they  are  likely  to  be  overturned 
when  the  dynasty  changes,  or  the  commune  sup 
plants  the  state. 

But  there  are  men  who  have  so  won  our  hearts 
that  we  would  recall  them  if  we  could.  We  feel  the 
need  of  them.  No  change  of  dynasties,  no  outbreak 

331 


33^  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

of  the  mob,  threatens  their  monuments.  One  can 
hardly  conceive  of  any  civil  revolution,  or  any  riot 
ous  outbreak  in  our  country  that  would  not  respect 
the  monuments  of  Washington,  and  of  Lincoln. 
While  they  lived  they  were  at  times  hated  by  men 
and  by  communities;  but,  when  the  full  stories  of 
their  lives  were  unfolded,  when  motives  and  pur 
poses  were  explored,  when  the  unselfish  natures  of 
the  men  were  understood,  when  the  universal  benef 
icence  of  their  public  services  was  seen,  all  their 
countrymen  rendered  them  homage. 

We  assemble  on  this  anniversary  of  the  birth  of 
Washington,  not  so  much,  if  at  all,  to  bring  tribute 
to  him  as  to  learn  at  his  feet  the  lessons  of  a  con 
scientious  citizenship. 

The  imitable  qualities  of  Washington's  character 
and  life;  those  that  did  not  exhaust  themselves  on  a 
locality  or  a  period;  that  are  instructive  not  only  to 
military  commanders  and  chief  magistrates,  but  to 
the  unofficial  citizen;  the  lessons  that  he  taught  for 
quiet  days,  when  no  drum  beat  calls  to  duty — these 
are  the  qualities  and  lessons  that  should  engage  our 
thoughts. 

Washington  was  a  man  who  acknowledged  his 
debt  to  his  country,  and  overpaid  it.  His  thought 
was  how  much,  not  how  little,  he  could  give  and  do. 

If  we  are  not  hypocrites  we  will  endeavor  to  imi 
tate  the  qualities  that  we  profess  to  admire.  Wash 
ington  took  thought  of  other  generations  than  his 


THE   OBLIGATIONS   OF   WEALTH  333 

own.  His  sagacious  vision  and  his  anxious  thought 
searched  the  long  vistas  of  the  future.  He  realized 
that  unless  a  strong  and  enduring  union  of  the 
states  was  established,  based  upon  principles  of  jus 
tice  and  an  equality  of  right,  his  arduous  campaigns 
and  his  solicitous  and  laborious  civil  administrations 
would  have  no  adequate  results.  He  realized  that 
love  of  country  might  grow  cold,  and  selfishness 
supplant  sacrifice,  when  commerce  and  wealth  and 
personal  and  local  interests  should,  in  the  unheroic 
days  of  peace  and  affluence,  become  dominant  influ 
ences  in  our  national  life. 

In  choosing  for  my  theme,  "The  Obligations 
of  Wealth,"  I  am  not  wresting  this  anniversary 
from  its  legitimate  use.  We  do  not  need  to  forget 
— indeed,  we  can  not  forget  Washington,  when  we 
reflect  upon  our  obligations  to  the  state.  His  life 
teaches  no  lesson  more  strongly  than  that  the  citi 
zen  is  under  obligation  to  serve  the  state;  never  to 
shirk  his  full  share  of  burden  and  sacrifice,  but  rath 
er  to  do  more. 

Wealth  is  a  comparative  term;  and  my  address 
is  not  for  that  very  limited  body  of  multi-million 
aires  called  by  the  Populist  orators,  "plutocrats/'  A 
smaller  audience  chamber  would  have  sufficed  for 
them;  and  perhaps  the  orator  should  have  been  of 
the  guild.  I  want  to  speak  of  the  obligations  of 
the  "well-to-do"  people,  the  forehanded,  prosperous 


'334  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

men  and  women  of  our  communities,  whether  their 
estates  are  reckoned  by  thousands  or  by  millions. 

We  live  in  a  time  of  great  agitation,  of  a  war  of 
clashing  thoughts  and  interests.  There  is  a  feeling 
that  some  men  are  handicapped;  that  the  race  is 
sold;  that  the  old  and  much  vaunted  equality  of 
opportunity  and  of  right  has  been  submerged.  More 
bitter  and  threatening  things  are  being  said  and 
written  against  accumulated  property  and  corporate 
power  than  ever  before.  It  is  said  that,  more  and 
more,  small  men,  small  stores  and  small  factories 
are  being  thrown  upon  the  shore  as  financial  drift; 
that  the  pursuit  of  cheapness  has  reached  a  stage 
where  only  enormous  combinations  of  capital,  doing 
an  enormous  business,  are  sure  of  returns. 

The  demand  for  cheapness  has  compacted  capital 
and  consolidated  small  enterprises.  It  has  been 
found  that  many  items  of  expense  do  not  increase 
proportionately  with  an  increased  output;  that  the 
economies  of  a  vast  business  are  themselves  a  basis 
for  a  dividend;  that  the  fugitive  lint  reclaimed 
from  the  air,  the  by-products — the  waste  of  the 
olden  time — make  a  showing  on  the  ledger.  The 
pay-roll  is  so  long  that  the  manager  and  the  mill- 
worker  are  further  apart  than  ever  before.  There 
is  no  personal  touch.  The  workmen  pour  through 
the  mill  gate  in  the  morning  much  as  the  water 
pours  through  the  lifted  head-gates.  Contact  is  lost 
between  the  owner,  the  president,  the  board  of  di- 


THE   OBLIGATIONS   OF   WEALTH  335 

rectors  and  the  men  who  work.  Questions  of  econo 
mies  and  of  dividends  are  discussed  in  the  board  of 
directors'  meeting;  the  question  of  wages  in  the 
labor  assembly.  There  is  little  comparison.  The 
men  do  not  come  together.  The  one  side  does  not 
hear  the  other. 

The  competition  between  well  paid  labor  and 
cheap  labor,  that  so  long  raged  between  this  coun 
try  and  Europe,  has  taken  on  a  new  phase.  Massa 
chusetts  is  complaining  of  the  long  hours  and  cheap 
labor  of  North  Carolina  and  Georgia.  The  legis 
lation  of  Massachusetts  solicitous  for  the  health 
and  welfare  of  her  laboring  population,  manifest 
ing  itself  in  limited  hours  of  labor,  in  the  prohibi 
tion  of  child  labor  and  such  things,  seems  to  have 
put  the  Massachusetts  mill-owner  at  a  disadvantage 
in  the  competition  with  mills  in  states  that  do  not 
impose  such  restrictions.  The  great  steel  mill,  with 
its  own  railroad  to  the  lakes,  its  great  steamers  and 
barges,  its  mines  of  ore  and  of  coal,  with  the  most 
improved  and  costly  labor-saving  machinery,  is 
rendering  the  survival  of  the  smaller  and  less 
perfectly  equipped  mills  doubtful,  if  not  impossi 
ble.  The  profits  of  the  mine  owner,  of  the  transpor 
tation  company,  and  of  the  mill  have  been  consoli 
dated. 

The  seams  which  mar  the  face  of  the  social  land 
scape  seem  to  be  widening  into  chasms,  and  if  these 
gulfs  are  to  be  filled  we  must  establish  dumps  on  both 


336  VIEWS    OF    AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

sides  of  them.  It  will  aid  the  work  if  those  on  eith 
er  side  use  the  bridges  to  get  a  view  of  it  from  the 
other  side.  Wealth  should  neither  be  the  object  of 
our  enmity  nor  the  basis  of  our  consideration. 
The  indiscriminate  denunciation  of  the  rich  is  mis 
chievous.  It  perverts  the  mind,  poisons  the  heart 
and  furnishes  an  excuse  to  crime.  No  poor  man 
was  ever  made  richer  or  happier  by  it!  It  is  quite 
as  illogical  to  despise  a  man  because  he  is  rich  as 
because  he  is  poor.  Not  what  a  man  has,  but  what 
he  is,  settles  his  class.  We  can  not  right  matters 
by  taking  from  one  what  he  has  honestly  acquired, 
to  bestow  upon  another  what  he  has  not  earned. 

You  do  not  injure  any  man  if  in  the  competition 
of  life,  by  fair  methods,  by  greater  skill  or  thrift, 
you  go  to  the  front.  There  is  nothing  more  whole 
some,  more  helpful  to  the  striving,  than  the  illus 
trations  which  every  community  affords  of  the 
triumph  of  pluck  and  thrift  over  hard  and  discour 
aging  conditions.  The  presence  of  a  man  on  the 
cliff  who  was  but  lately  in  the  gorge  is  conclusive 
evidence  of  a  path,  and  it  is  much  wiser  to  give  our 
strength  to  climbing  than  to  stone-throwing.  He 
should  send  his  "hail  brother"  down,  and  we 
should  send  ours  up. 

In  the  discussion  of  all  of  these  social  questions 
good  temper  is  essential.  Men  must  get  together 
and  use  facts,  not  rhetoric.  We  do  not  want 
crusaders  or  a  crusade.  The  crusader  was  an 
ignorant  fellow  who  counted  the  empty  sepulcher 


THE   OBLIGATIONS   OF    WEALTH  337 

of  our  Lord  of  more  value  than  His  precepts.  In 
social  and  political  movements  he  is  a  destruction- 
ist,  not  a  builder.  When  the  house  is  so  rotten  that 
it  is  beyond  repair,  there  is  a  call  for  him  to  clear 
the  ground.  But  if  the  foundation  and  walls  are 
strong  and  plumb,  and  it  is  only  a  question  of  a 
new  roof  or  of  improved  interior  arrangements, 
the  man  of  destructive  tendencies  should  be  clubbed 
off  the  premises.  But  the  leaky  roof  and  unsani 
tary  interior  must  have  attention,  and  the  architect 
and  his  workmen  must  get  to  work  with  zeal,  and 
a  plan.  The  tenants  will  stand  together  against 
the  destructionists  and  the  fire-bugs;  but  have  a 
care,  for  if  repairs  are  not  promptly  and  wisely 
made;  if  the  dwellers  on  the  first  floor  cut  off  the 
heat  and  water  from  the  dwellers  in  the  attic, 
things  may  become  so  intolerable  that  the  tenants 
of  the  attic  will  open  the  doors  to  the  fire-bugs. 

Those  who  occupy  the  first  floor  and  the  commo 
dious  and  elegant  middle  stories  must  pay  their 
share  of  the  gas  and  water  bills.  The  great  mid 
dle  class  of  our  people  has  never  failed  to  respond 
to  the  fire  alarm,  though  they  have  only  small  prop 
erties  at  risk,  and  these  not  immediately  threatened. 
But  there  ic  danger  that  they  will  lose  their  zeal  as 
firemen,  if  those  in  whose  apartments  the  fire  has 
been  kindled  do  not  pay  their  proportionate  share 
of  the  cost  of  the  fire  department. 

There  must  be  a  searching  inquiry  into  the  dis- 


338  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

tribution  of  the  heat  and  water  supplies,  conducted, 
not  by  a  tip-taking  janitor,  but  by  a  committee  of 
the  whole  house.  If  there  has  been  any  monopoliz 
ing  of  these  things,  or  any  failure  to  pay  for  them 
proportionately,  we  must  be  as  active  to  stamp  out 
the  monopoly  and  the  injustice  as  we  are  to  extin 
guish  a  fire.  To  stamp  out  a  fire  is  a  much  simpler 
process  than  to  correct  unjust  social  or  legal  rela 
tions.  The  cry  of  "fire"  arouses  everybody,  and 
stirs  the  most  sluggish  to  instant  action;  but  to 
ferret  out  a  wrong  is  tedious,  and  the  work  neither 
attracts  nor  arouses  us  very  much,  unless  the  sting 
is  under  our  own  skin. 

The  great  bulk  of  our  people  are  lovers  of  jus 
tice.  They  do  not  believe  that  poverty  is  a  virtue 
or  property  a  crime.  They  believe  in  an  equality 
of  opportunity  and  not  of  dollars.  But  there  must 
be  no  handicapping  of  the  dull  brother  and  no 
chicanery  or  fraud  or  shirking.  If  our  plan  of 
taxation  includes  notes  and  bonds  and  stocks  they 
must  be  listed.  The  plea  of  business  privacy  has 
been  driven  too  hard.  If  for  mere  statistical  pur 
poses  we  may  ask  the  head  of  the  family  whether 
there  are  any  idiots  in  his  household  and  enforce 
an  answer  by  court  process,  we  may  surely,  for 
revenue  purposes,  require  a  detailed  list  of  his  se 
curities.  The  men  who  have  wealth  must  not  hide 
it  from  the  tax  gatherer,  and  flaunt  it  on  the  street. 
Such  things  breed  a  great  discontent.  All  other 


THE   OBLIGATIONS   OF   WEALTH  '339 

men  are  hurt.  They  bear  a  disproportionate  bur 
den.  A  strong  soldier  will  carry  the  knapsack  of 
a  crippled  comrade,  but  he  will  not  permit  a  robust 
shirk  to  add  so  much  as  his  tin  cup  to  the  burden. 

The  special  purpose  of  my  address  to-day  is  to 
press  home  this  thought  upon  the  prosperous  well- 
to-do  people  of  our  communities,  and  especially  of 
our  great  cities;  that  one  of  the  conditions  of  the 
security  of  wealth,  is  a  proportionate  and  full  con 
tribution  to  the  expenses  of  the  state  and  local  gov 
ernments.  It  is  not  only  wrong,  but  it  is  unsafe, 
to  make  a  show  in  our  homes  and  on  the  street  that 
is  not  made  in  the  tax  returns. 

I  only  allude  casually  to  the  sentimental  side  of 
this  question,  to  the  unpatriotic  character  of  those 
American  citizens  who  are  niching  the  great  privi 
leges  of  American  citizenship. 

Equality  is  the  golden  thread  that  runs  all 
through  the  fabric  of  our  civil  institutions — the 
dominating  note  in  the  swelling  symphony  of  liberty. 
The  favoritisms  and  class  distinctions  which  char 
acterized  the  governments  and  administrations  of 
Europe  were  destroyed  with  the  establishment  of 
government  under  the  American  constitution.  At 
the  polls,  before  the  courts,  in  all  assemblies  of  the 
people,  in  all  legislation,  there  was  to  be,  not  a  class 
peerage,  but  a  universal  peerage.  And  as  a  corol 
lary,  necessary  and  imperative,  to  this  doctrine  of 
an  equality  of  right,  is  the  doctrine  of  a  proportion- 


34O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

ate  and  ratable  contribution  to  the  cost  of  admin 
istering  the  government.  Indeed  this  principle  of  a 
proportionate  burden  might  be  more  properly  called 
an  inherent  part  of  the  doctrine  of  equal  rights.  For 
one  whose  right  to  acquire  and  accumulate  is  dis 
proportionately  burdened,  is  denied  equal  rights.  If 
favored  classes  may  not  be  created,  neither  may 
any  class  be  discriminated  against.  In  all  of  the 
early  constitutions  of  the  states  careful  provision 
was  made  that  the  burdens  of  taxation  should  be 
proportional,  each  man  paying  ratably  upon  what 
he  possessed.  The  state  was  to  gather  from  all  and 
to  dispense  for  the  benefit  of  all.  Whims  and  favor 
itism  were  excluded.  Imposition  and  grace,  in  a 
free  republican  state,  must  be  without  discrimina 
tion. 

It  is  a  part  of  our  individual  covenant  as  citizens 
with  the  state  that  we  will,  honestly  and  fully,  in 
the  rate  or  proportion  fixed  from  time  to  time  by 
law,  contribute  our  just  share  to  all  public  expenses. 
A  full  and  conscientious  discharge  of  that  duty  by 
the  citizen  is  one  of  the  tests  of  good  citizenship. 
To  evade  that  duty  is  a  moral  delinquency,  an  un 
patriotic  act. 

The  tax-paying  conscience  is  dulled  in  times  of 
peace.  When  a  ravaging  foe  threatens  a  popula 
tion  with  fire  and  sword  men  appreciate  the  de 
fense  which  the  government  interposes  between  them 
and  danger. 


THE   OBLIGATIONS   OF   WEALTH  '34! 

I  want  to  emphasize,  if  I  can,  the  thought  that 
the  preservation  of  this  principle  of  a  proportionate 
contribution,  according  to  the  true  value  of  what 
each  man  has,  to  the  public  expenditures,  is  essen 
tial  to  the  maintenance  of  our  free  institutions,  and 
of  peace  and  good  order  in  our  communities.  I  do 
not  say  that  every  tax  must  be  universal  and  touch 
all  property  of  every  kind.  The  general  property 
tax  must  do  so,  but  I  recognize  the  fact  that  excise 
taxes  and  franchise  taxes,  and  such  like,  may  be 
levied  in  addition  to  the  general  property  tax,  and 
that  the  requirement  as  to  such  taxes  is  only  that 
they  shall  be  uniform  in  the  class  which  is  sub 
jected  to  them,  and  that  the  classification  shall  be 
natural  and  not  arbitrary. 

If  we  do  not  hold  to  this  rule  of  proportion  and 
uniformity,  everything  becomes  subject  to  the 
whim  of  the  legislature.  The  whole  revenue  of  a 
state  may  be  derived  from  contributions  exacted 
from  a  very  small  minority  of  its  population,  the 
majority  going  free.  To  allow  such  a  system  is 
not  only  to  rob  the  minority  thus  unduly  burdened, 
but  is  to  rob  the  state  of  that  which  is  essential  to 
its  healthy  existence,  and  indeed  to  the  life  of  re 
publican  institutions.  Honesty  and  carefulness  in 
public  expenditure  will  them  have  no  effective  watch 
ers.  The  watch  of  the  minority  will  be  ineffectual, 
and  the  majority  will  be  careless  as  to  the  use  of 


342  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

funds,  to  the  accumulation  of  which  it  has  not  con 
tributed. 

In  his  second  annual  address  to  congress,  deliv 
ered  in  December,  1790,  President  Washington 
spoke  with  gratification  of  the  state  of  the  public 
revenues,  and  said  that  the  prompt  payment  of  the 
public  dues  was  (I  quote)  "an  honorable  testi 
mony  to  the  patriotism  and  integrity  of  the  mer 
cantile  and  marine  part  of  our  citizens." 

The  house  of  representatives,  in  responding  to 
this  address,  said:  "Nor  can  we  learn  without  an 
additional  gratification  that  the  energy  of  the  laws 
for  providing  adequate  revenues  have  been  so  hon 
orably  seconded  by  those  classes  of  citizens  whose 
patriotism  and  probity  were  more  immediately 
concerned." 

Probity,  integrity  and  patriotism  seem  to  have 
been  thought,  in  those  early  days  of  the  republic, 
to  have  a  very  direct  relation  to  tax-paying. 

For  very  many  years  an  opinion  has  been  preva 
lent  that  the  great  bulk  of  the  personal  property  of 
the  states,  especially  of  the  class  denominated  "se 
curities,"  including  stocks,  bonds,  notes,  mortgages 
and  such  like,  has  escaped  taxation.  With  a  very 
few  exceptions  the  great  fortunes  in  this  country 
are  invested  in  such  securities.  There  is,  of  course, 
in  the  aggregate,  a  somewhat  wide  distribution  of 
the  stocks  and  bonds  of  some  of  our  great  corpora 
tions,  but  it  seems  probable  that  these  smaller 


THE   OBLIGATIONS   OF   WEALTH  343 

holdings  are  in  a  fairer  degree  represented  in  the 
tax  returns.  The  delinquency  appears  to  be  largely 
located  in  our  great  cities. 

Recent  investigations  by  students  of  political 
science,  and  recent  tables  prepared  by  state  tax 
officials,  have  disclosed  an  appalling  condition  of 
things.  The  evil  seems  to  have  been  progressive 
until,  in  some  of  our  great  centers  of  population 
and  wealth,  these  forms  of  personal  property  seem 
to  have  been  almost  eliminated  from  the  tax  list. 

In  1870,  in  the  state  of  New  York,  the  personal 
property  assessed  amounted  to  twenty-two  per  cent,  of 
the  total  property  assessed.  In  1896  the  proportion 
of  personal  property  assessed  had  fallen  to  twelve  and 
four-tenths  per  cent. 

Comptroller  Roberts,  of  that  state,  declares  that 
as  a  rule  this  class  of  property  escapes  taxation. 
The  taxable  value  of  real  estate  in  the  state  of  New 
York  increased  between  1870  and  1895,  T55  Per 
cent.,  while  the  value  of  taxable  personal  property, 
as  shown  by  the  assessment,  within  the  same  time, 
increased  less  than  six  per  cent. 

Mr.  Roberts  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  in 
crease  in  the  value  of  personal  property  has  in  fact 
been  much  more  rapid  than  that  of  real  estate,  and 
that  the  value  of  the  personal  property  owned  in 
the  state  is  at  least  equal  to,  if  not  more  than,  the 
value  of  the  real  estate.  He  states  that  from  two 
and  one-half  to  three  billion  dollars  of  personal 


344,  VIEWS  OF  AN  EX-PRESIDENT 

property,    taxable    by    law    in    New    York,    escapes 
taxation  every  year. 

In  an  article  published  in  the  Forum  in  1897,  in 
advocacy  of  a  progressive  inheritance  tax,  he  takes 
107  estates,  which  he  says  were  selected  at  random 
in  the  comptroller's  office,  and  contrasts  the  amount 
of  appraised  personal  property  found  after  death, 
with  the  amount  returned  for  taxation  the  year  be 
fore  death.  He  says  that  of  this  number  of  estates, 
thirty- four,  ranging  in  value  from  $54,000  to  over -$3,- 
000,000,  were  assessed  the  year  before  the  decedents' 
death  absolutely  nothing.  These  107  estates  dis 
closed  personalty  at  death  to  the  aggregate  amount 
of  $215,132,366;  and  this  enormous  aggregate  had 
the  year  before  the  respective  deaths  of  the  owners 
been  assessed  at  the  amount  of  $3,819,412,  or  one  and 
seventy-seven  one-hundredths  per  cent,  of  the  actual 
value  of  the  property. 

In  1874  the  board  of  state  assessors  of  New 
York  reported  to  the  legislature  as  follows: 

"From  our  examinations  we  are  satisfied  that 
less  than  fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  personal  property  of 
the  state  liable  to  taxation  finds  a  place  on  the  rolls 
of  the  assessor.  *  *  *  The  amount  of  personal 
property  assessed  in  some  of  the  counties  is  less 
than  the  banking  capital,  and  the  same  is  true  of 
thirty  towns  and  cities,  among  which  are  some  of 
the  most  prosperous  in  the  state." 

In  1892,  the  tax  board  said:  "Laws  for  the 
assessment  of  personal  property  have  failed  to  do 


THE   OBLIGATIONS   OF  .WEALTH  345 

their  work,  and  the  failure  becomes  more  complete 
and  more  unjust  with  every  successive  year." 

The  tax  commission  of  Massachusetts,  which 
reported  to  the  governor  a  few  months  ago,  shows 
that  the  total  valuation  of  real  estate  in  that  state 
for  taxation  was,  in  1896,  $2,040,200,644,  and  the 
total  valuation  of  personal  property,  assessed  in 
the  same  year,  was  $582,319,634 — about  one- 
fourth. 

As  to  the  tax  upon  securities,  or  intangible  prop 
erty,  as  it  is  called,  the  commission  says: 

"In  each  of  the  cities  a  few  persons  of  unusual 
conscientiousness  make  returns.  Such  persons 
are  accordingly  taxed  fully,  and,  as  a  rule,  much 
more  heavily  than  their  less  conscientious  neigh 
bors.  *  *  *  From  the  testimony  which  assessors 
have  given  before  us,  there  is  a  grave  suspicion  that 
sometimes  sworn  statements  are  falsely  made,  and 
that  perjury  is  added  for  the  sake  of  evading  or  re 
ducing  taxation." 

Concluding  the  discussion  upon  this  subject,  the 
majority  of  the  commissioners  say:  "That  the 
great  bulk  of  intangible  property  taxable  by  law  is 
not  reached,  is  admitted  on  all  hands.  It  is  proved 
beyond  doubt  by  the  sensitive  records  of  the  stock 
and  bond  market.  Securities  of  all  sorts,  taxable 
in  Massachusetts,  but  not  taxable  in  New  York 
and  in  other  states,  are  publicly  bought  and  sold 
every  day  at  the  same  prices  in  the  different  markets. 


346  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

If  taxed  according  to  law  in  Massachusetts,  at  a 
rate  of  from  one  to  one  and  a  half  per  cent,  of 
their  selling  value,  they  could  not  possibly  com 
mand  the  price  in  Massachusetts  which  they  com 
mand  in  other  states;  nor  could  they  be  sold  side 
by  side  with  shares  in  Massachusetts  corporations, 
or  with  mortgage  loans,  at  such  prices  as  to  yield 
about  the  same  interest  on  the  same  investment.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  securities  of  the  same  solidity  and 
yielding  the  same  income  are  sold  side  by  side, 
with  no  material  difference  in  quotations,  whether 
they  are  taxable  or  not  taxable.  Taxable  securities 
are  bought  and  sold  every  day,  not  on  the  basis  of 
being  taxed  in  fact,  but  only  on  the  basis  of  some 
incalculable  and  disregarded  possibility  of  their 
being  reached  by  taxation." 

A  gentleman  of  prominence,  residing  in  one  of 
the  smaller  towns  of  New  England,  recently  told  me 
that  there  had  resided  in  his  town  for  many  years 
a  gentleman  who  was  reputed  to  be  wealthy,  whom 
he  supposed  to  be  worth,  perhaps,  a  million  dollars, 
and  who  was  assessed  for  $100,000.  He  died,  and 
when  his  personal  property  was  scheduled  by  his 
executor  it  was  found  to  amount  to  about  six  mil 
lion  dollars — if  I  recall  the  figures  accurately — 
and  when  this  property  went  upon  the  assessment 
roll  of  the  town  the  tax  rate  was  reduced  one- 
half.  In  other  words,  this  gentleman,  living  in 
neighborly  relations  to  his  fellow-citizens  and  dis- 


THE   OBLIGATIONS   OF   WEALTH  347 

charging  apparently  with  kindliness  all  of  the  obli 
gations  of  citizenship,  had  been  every  year  of  his 
residence  in  the  town  defrauding  his  neighbors  by 
compelling  them  to  contribute  to  the  public  expense 
a  share  that  he  should  in  honesty  and  good  con 
science  have  discharged.  He  was  filching  from 
every  hand  that  was  extended  to  him  in  neighborly 
confidence.  His  alms  were  of  other  men's  goods. 

A  newspaper  report  of  addresses  by  the  advo 
cates  of  the  single  land  tax  to  some  Massachusetts 
tax  assessors,  contains  some  extreme  but  interesting 
statements.  A  prominent  New  York  lawyer  is  re 
ported  to  have  spoken  with  an  amazing  frankness 
as  to  his  personal  and  professional  participation  in 
"tax  evasion,  thus: 

"They  maintain  a  system  which  is  worth  a  great 
deal  of  money  to  me,  and  in  these  hard  times  every 
little  counts,  and  when  I  think  how  much  they  save 
me  in  taxes  and  how  much  they  put  into  my  pocket 
by  the  maintenance  of  their  system  of  taxes  I  feel 
grateful  to  them.  I  feel  grateful  to  the  western 
farmers,  because  they  pay  my  taxes.  It  is  not 
necessary  for  me  to  tell  lies  in  New  York  to  get  rid 
of  this  taxation;  it  needs  nothing  but  a  little  clever 
management.  I  manage  it  for  many  of  my  clients. 
One  of  them  is  a  clergyman's  widow,  who  would 
no  more  tell  a  lie  than  anything  in  the  world,  but 
I  have  so  managed  her  property  as  gradually  to  re- 


34-8  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

duce  it,  until  this  year  I  got  her  off  the  list  en 
tirely." 

The  appeal  tax  court  of  Maryland,  responding 
to  an  inquiry  from  the  tax  commission  of  that 
state,  in  1881,  said: 

"We  utterly  fail  in  reaching  private  securities  of 
any  description.  Here  and  there  only  have  they 
been  returned  by  some  conscientious  holders." 

The  report  of  the  revenue  commission  of  Illinois 
of  1886  discloses  that  practically  the  same  state  of 
things  exists  in  your  state.  Indeed,  so  glaring  and 
outrageous  is  this  withholding  of  personal  property 
from  the  tax  list,  and  so  great  are  the  inequalities  be 
tween  the  counties  of  your  state  resulting  from  this 
practice,  that  I  notice  the  labor  commission  of  Illinois 
recommends  the  abandonment  of  the  attempt  to  col 
lect  taxes  upon  personal  property. 

The  statements  which  are  attributed  by  the 
bureau  of  labor,  in  their  report,  to  eminent  citi 
zens  of  Chicago,  as  to  tax  conditions  here,  are 
appalling. 

Professor  Bemis,  in  a  recent  letter  in  the  Inde 
pendent,  speaking  of  affairs  here  in  Illinois,  and  of 
some  revelations  made  by  your  Tax-Payers  De 
fense  League,  makes  a  comparison  between  the 
commercial  agency  ratings  and  the  tax  list,  and 
gives  this  instance:  "A  certain  banker,  rated  by 
Bradstreet's  among  the  millionaires,  is  assessed  at 
$1,200,  or  less  than  one  per  cent,  of  his  personal 


THE   OBLIGATIONS   OF   WEALTH  349 

property;  while  a  poor  woman,  Mrs.  McGuire,  is 
assessed  on  her  real  estate  at  twenty-three  per  cent,  of 
its  value.  The  question  naturally  arises,  How  long 
will  there  be  any  respect  for  government  or  law  if 
these  things  are  allowed  to  continue?" 

In  conclusion  he  says:  "A  great  awakening  all 
over  the  country  is  needed  and  that  speedily,  in 
order  that  the  people  may  appreciate  the  enormity 
and  injustice  of  existing  methods  of  state  and  local 
taxation,  and  may  be  impelled  to  effect  changes 
that  shall  make  of  the  state  an  instrument  of  right 
eousness  rather  than  what  it  is  now  in  this  matter 
of  taxation — a  conniver  at  fraud  and  creator  of  in 
equality." 

It  is  easy  to  see  how  this  offense  against  moral 
ity  and  patriotism  has  grown  to  such  proportions. 
The  very  sense  that  inequality  is  injustice  has  pro 
moted  it.  One  man  sees  that  his  neighbor  is  not 
making  a  conscientious  tax  return,  and  that  if  he  re 
turns  his  property  honestly  he  will  pay  dispropor 
tionately.  The  result  is  that  his  conscience  finds  a 
salve  in  the  saying,  "Everybody  does  it." 

It  is  probably  also  true  that  under  the  tax  laws 
of  many  of  our  states  double  taxation  results  and 
tax-payers  take  it  upon  themselves  to  remedy  this 
defect  in  the  law,  not  by  the  methods  prescribed 
by  the  constitution,  but  by  leaving  off  from  their 
tax  returns  such  stocks  and  securities  as  they  sup 
pose  to  be  taxed  in  other  states. 


35O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

Our  system  of  state  governments  and  the  lack 
of  uniformity  in  our  state  laws  undoubtedly  result 
in  some  injustice  and  inequality,  but  the  conscienti 
ous  tax-payer  must  abide  by  the  law.  The  military 
power  of  the  state  responds  to  his  call  to  protect 
his  property  from  lawlessness;  but  the  appeal  of 
the  law  breaker  to  be  delivered  from  the  law  break 
er  is  not  so  strong  as  that  of  the  law  abiding  citi 
zen. 

Wealth  evokes  jealousy,  and  the  strong  arm  of 
the  law  is  often  invoked  to  protect  it  from  the  so 
cialist  and  the  anarchist.  It  must  pay  its  fair  pro 
portion  of  the  cost  of  making  this  defense — or  the 
vigor  of  the  defense  may  fail. 

Our  oath  of  fealty  includes  all  the  laws,  the 
small  as  well  as  the  great,  the  inconvenient  as  well 
as  the  convenient.  The  compact  to  obey  the  laws  is 
the  basis  of  our  civil  system,  the  only  guaranty  of 
social  order,  and  the  test  of  good  citizenship. 

Taxes  are  a  debt  of  the  highest  obligation,  and 
no  casuist  can  draw  a  sound  moral  distinction  be 
tween  the  man  who  hides  his  property  or  makes  a 
false  return  in  order  to  escape  the  payment  of  his 
debt  to  the  state,  and  the  man  who  conceals  his 
property  from  his  private  creditors.  Nor  should 
it  be  more  difficult  to  follow  the  defaulter  in  the  one 
case  than  in  the  other.  If  our  taxes  were  farmed 
out  to  an  individual  or  to  a  corporation  they  would 
be  collected.  There  would  be  a  vigilant  and  unre- 


THE   OBLIGATIONS   OF   WEALTH  351 

lenting  pursuit.  The  civil  and  criminal  processes 
of  the  law  would  be  invoked  with  effect,  just  as 
they  were  against*  fraudulent  debtors  under  the 
bankrupt  law.  Is  it  not  possible  to  secure  public 
officers  who  will  show  the  same  activity? 

When  to  this  enormous  and  crying  evil  is  added 
the  corruption  which  it  is  alleged  characterizes  the 
appraisements  of  real  estate  in  some  of  our  great 
cities,  we  have  a  condition  of  things  with  which 
we  dare  not  palter.  We  must  establish,  and  at 
once,  a  system  that  shall  equalize  tax  burdens.  The 
men  of  wealth  in  our  great  communities  should 
lead  the  movement.  This  great  club,  organized  as 
a  rallying  center  for  loyalty  and  patriotic  citizen 
ship,  should  hear  a  call  as  loud  and  imperative  as 
that  which  came  to  its  members  during  the  years  of 
the  civil  war. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  startling  declaration  that  this 
country  could  not  continue  to  exist  half  slave  and 
half  free  may  be  paraphrased  to-day  by  saying  that 
this  country  can  not  continue  to  exist  half  taxed 
and  half  free. 

This  sense  of  inequality  breeds  a  fierce  and  un 
reasoning  anger — creates  classes,  intensifies  social 
differences,  and  tends  to  make  men  willing  to  pay 
their  debts  in  half  dollars.  The  just  sacredness  of 
these  money  obligations,  the  right  of  the  holders  to 
be  paid  in  money  of  full  value,  will  be  clearer  to 


352  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

these  angry  men  if  they  see  that  these  securities 
are  paying  their  lawful  taxes. 

If  there  is  not  enough  public  virtue  left  in  our 
communities  to  make  tax  frauds  discreditable;  if 
there  is  not  virility  enough  left  in  our  laws  and  in 
the  administration  of  justice  in  our  courts  to  bring 
to  punishment  those  who  defraud  the  state  and  their 
neighbors,  is  there  not  danger  that  crimes  of  vio 
lence  will  make  insecure  the  fortunes  that  have  re 
fused  to  contribute  ratably  to  the  cost  of  maintain 
ing  social  order? 

If  we  are  to  admit  that  the  obligations  of  public 
duty  and  of  personal  veracity  and  integrity  are  so 
little  felt  by  our  people,  and  that  our  administra 
tive  and  judicial  processes  are  so  inadequate  that 
tax  frauds  can  not  be  measurably  restrained,  hope 
for  the  country  is  eclipsed. 

The  failures  which  have  accompanied,  in  an  in 
creased  ratio,  the  attempt  to  collect  the  personal 
property  tax,  have  led  many  tax  reformers  to  favor 
its  total  abolition,  and  the  substitution  of  other 
forms  of  taxation.  The  failure  of  the  wealthy 
holders  of  these  intangible  securities  to  pay  their 
just  proportion  of  the  cost  of  government  has 
stimulated  a  demand  for  special  forms  of  taxation 
and  for  progressive  taxation,  with  a  view  in  some 
measure  to  recoup  to  the  community  the  losses 
which  are  inflicted  by  evasive  or  fraudulent  tax 
returns.  The  people  will  not  consent  that  the 


THE   OBLIGATIONS   OF   WEALTH  353 

present  state  of  things  shall  be  accepted  as  a  per 
manent  condition. 

The  spirit  of  discontent  is  rife.  The  farmer,  the 
man  of  moderate  circumstances,  has  unfailingly 
and  unfalteringly  rallied  to  suppress  mob  violence 
and  to  preserve  the  peace  of  our  communities. 
These  men  are  not  agrarians  or  socialists  or  anar 
chists,  or  covetous  of  other  men's  goods,  but  they 
will  not,  and  should  not  permit  the  tax  burdens 
upon  their  smaller  properties  to  be  doubled  by  the 
evasions  and  frauds  of  the  holders  of  these  intangi 
ble  securities. 

Professor  Seligman,  of  Columbia  University,  a  very 
eminent  authority  on  political  economy,  says: 

"The  farmers  here,  like  the  landlords  there, 
(Florence,  Italy),  complain  with  justice  that,  ow 
ing  to  the  failure  of  the  tax  on  intangible  personalty, 
they  have  to  pay  not  only  their  share  but  the  share 
of  others.  *  *  *  The  townsman's  personalty 
practically  escapes.  Hence  the  unrest  of  the  pres 
ent  day;  hence  the  dissatisfaction  of  the  rural  dis 
tricts;  hence  the  continual  efforts  made  to  enforce 
the  taxation  of  personalty  by  the  system  of  sworn 
returns  known  as  the  listing  system.' ' 

The  personal  property  tax,  he  thinks,  does  not 
secure  equality,  but  incites  to  dishonesty,  and  does 
not  respond  to  the  American  sense  of  justice.  He, 
however,  represents  the  farmer  as  responding  to  the 
suggestion  of  the  abolition  of  the  personal  property 


354  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

tax  thus:  "If  the  state  succeeds  in  collecting  only 
a  part  of  the  tax,  is  that  any  reason  for  our  aban 
doning  the  whole  tax  and  saddling  ourselves  with 
the  remainder?" 

A  very  great  difficulty  in  the  proper  adjustment 
of  the  state  tax  laws  is  forcing  itself  upon  the  pub 
lic  mind,  growing  out  of  our  federal  organization. 
Before  the  adoption  of  the  constitution,  when  each 
state  made  its  own  tariff  laws,  the  power  to  levy 
imposts  was  practically  nullified  by  the  competitions 
between  the  states.  They  underbid  each  other.  The 
solution  was  found  in  confiding  the  tax  upon  im 
ports  wholly  to  the  national  government,  which  could 
establish  and  maintain  equal  rates  in  all  parts  of 
the  United  States. 

In  a  measure  the  same  embarrassment  is  now  be 
ing  felt  in  the  framing  and  administration  of  the 
tax  laws  of  the  several  states.  Real  or  simulated 
changes  of  residence  are  made  from  one  state  to 
another,  with  a  view  to  finding  the  most  favorable 
tax  conditions,  or  the  most  pliable  assessors. 

Professor  Seligman  suggests  the  necessity  of  the 
"spirit  of  interstate  comity,"  with  a  view  to  ar 
ranging  "for  a  substantially  identical  treatment  of 
these  complicated  tax  questions,"  and  adds: 

"If  the  American  attempts  at  voluntary  co-opera 
tion  be  not  successful,  the  time  may  yet  come  when 
these  will  be  replaced  by  compulsory  co-operation. 
In  a  community  where  the  pressure  of  economic 


THE   OBLIGATIONS   OF   WEALTH  355 

forces  has  made  us  primarily  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  and  only  secondarily  citizens  of  the  separate 
states,  a  system  of  taxation,  based  upon  the  idea 
of  separatism  and  mutual  jealousy  rather  than  of 
unity  can  not  permanently  endure." 

It  is  not  easy,  however,  to  see  how  a  federal  con 
trol  of  these  questions  can  be  established.  The 
states  are  not  likely  to  surrender  such  important 
powers  to  the  national  government. 

Yet  I  think  it  would  be  quite  well  to  assemble  a 
convention  of  tax  commissioners  from  all  the  states 
to  discuss  this  intricate  and  exigent  problem.  Pos 
sibly  some  general  principles  might  be  agreed  upon 
that  would  remedy  the  just  complaints  of  double 
taxation,  especially  in  the  case  of  corporate  proper 
ties  and  securities. 

I  can  not  believe,  however,  that  it  is  impossible 
so  to  stir  the  consciences  of  our  people,  so  to  stimu 
late  the  independence  and  courage  of  our  assessors 
and  of  our  courts  and  prosecutors,  as  to  secure  a 
fairly  general  enforcement  of  the  personal  property 
tax.  I  know  that  men  hesitate  to  call  a  neighbor 
to  judgment  in  this  matter.  We  have  too  much 
treated  the  matter  of  a  man's  tax  return  as  a  per 
sonal  matter.  We  have  put  his  transactions  with 
the  state  on  much  the  same  level  with  his  transac 
tions  with  his  banker,  but  that  is  not  the  true  basis. 
Each  citizen  has  a  personal  interest,  a  pecuniary  in 
terest,  in  the  tax  return  of  his  neighbor.  We  are 


356  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

members  of  a  great  partnership,  and  it  is  the  right 
of  each  to  know  what  every  other  member  is  con 
tributing  to  the  partnership  and  what  he  is  taking 
from  it.  It  is  not  a  private  affair;  it  is  a  public  con 
cern  of  the  first  importance. 

Perhaps  there  should  be  a  general  proclamation 
of  amnesty  and  a  new  start,  for  many  men  have 
been  enticed  into  these  offenses  by  the  belief  that  all 
others  were  offending. 

The  pulpit,  the  press,  every  agency  that  deals  with 
public,  social  and  moral  questions  should  lend  its 
help.  There  should  be  committees  of  public  safety; 
for,  my  fellow-citizens,  I  do  not  exaggerate  when  I 
say  that  the  public  safety  is  involved  in  a  more  equal 
administration  of  our  tax  laws.  Returns  and  assess 
ments  must  be  honest  and  equal.  If  there  are  ine 
qualities  in  the  law  they  must  be  remedied  by  legis 
lation,  and  not  by  the  usurpations  of  the  individual. 

I  think  we  must  assume  that  there  are  very  few, 
if  any,  of  our  states  prepared  to  consent  to  the  abo 
lition  of  the  personal  property  tax. 

As  a  supplemental  tax,  levied  within  the  require 
ments  of  equality  and  uniformity,  a  succession  or  in 
heritance  tax  may  be  well  enough,  if  the  state  consti 
tution  permits  it;  but  the  principle  of  progression,  a 
higher  rate  for  large  estates,  seems  to  me  to  be  in 
consistent  with  that  rule  of  proportion  and  equality 
which  should  characterize  all  taxation.  The  practical 
question,  the  one  our  people  must  solve,  and  solve 


THE   OBLIGATIONS   OF   WEALTH  357 

speedily,  is  the  enforcement  of  the  personal  property 
tax  and  the  equalization  of  real  estate  assessments. 

If  no  other  remedy  can  be  found,  perhaps  the 
state  might  declare  and  maintain  an  estoppel  against 
the  claim  of  any  man  or  his  heirs  to  property,  the 
ownership  of  which  he  had  disclaimed  in  his  tax  re 
turns. 

If  a  succession  tax  is  used  to  recoup  the  taxes 
unpaid  during  life,  it  should  be  so  framed  as  to 
reach  the  guilty  and  save  the  innocent.  Perhaps  a 
higher  rate  could  be  levied  upon  property  as  to 
which  paid  tax  bills  are  not  produced. 

What  has  already  been  accomplished  in  Chicago 
gives  a  gratifying  hope  that  a  public  sentiment  can 
be  created  that  will  relieve  our  states  from  the  scan 
dals  and  frauds  which  have  characterized  the  admin 
istration  of  the  tax  laws. 

It  is  not  within  the  purposes  of  this  address  to 
propose  in  detail  the  needed  reforms,  but  rather  to 
emphasize  the  need,  and  to  suggest  that  our  men 
of  wealth  should  themselves  come  forward  and  take 
the  lead  in  these  reforms;  that  they  should  not  only 
show  a  willingness,  but  a  zeal,  to  bear  their  full 
proportionate  share  of  all  public  burdens.  If  they 
do  not  the  sense  of  injury  is  so  strong  that  ways 
will  be  found,  I  fear,  to  exact  more  than  is  equal. 
To  do  justice  is  the  best  safeguard  against  injus 
tice. 


ON  RETURNING  FROM  WASHINGTON 

State  House,  Indianapolis,  March  6,  1893 

I  do  not  think,  even  if  the  circumstances  were 
more  favorable  than  now  surround  us,  I  could  say 
more  than  the  fewest  words  of  thanks.  Four  years 
ago,  if  the  calendar  is  consulted,  I  left  you  to  as 
sume  high  responsibilities.  If  I  should  consult 
heart  and  mind  I  should  say  it  is  ten  years  since  I 
bade  good-bye  to  my  Indianapolis  friends.  Not  the 
rising  and  the  setting  of  the  sun,  but  our  experi 
ences,  give  the  true  sense  of  duration.  I  came  back 
to  Indianapolis — for  since  I  came  to  manhood,  I 
have  had  no  other  home.  Suggestions  of  an  attract 
ive  sort  were  made  to  me  to  make  my  home  else 
where,  but  it  seemed  to  me  that  the  only  home  for 
me  was  Indianapolis.  I  am  too  old  to  make  a  new 
home;  not  too  old,  I  hope,  to  renew  those  old  asso 
ciations  that  make  this  so  dear  a  home,  and  to  take 
within  the  circle  of  my  affectionate  regard  this  mul 
titude  of  new  faces  that  I  see  here  to-night.  This 
city  has  made  a  wonderful  growth  since  I  left  it. 

358 


ON   RETURNING   FROM    WASHINGTON  359 

I  shall  have  to  learn  again  the  landmarks.  Change> 
improvement,  expansion  and  increase  are  everywhere 
apparent,  and  in  all  this  I  rejoice  with  you.  The 
State  of  Indiana  has  made  corresponding  increase. 
Factories  and  homes  have  greatly  multiplied,  our 
population  has  greatly  increased.  Wealth  has  been 
developed,  and  I  trust  and  believe  that  with  this  ad 
vancement  along  material  lines  there  have  been  a  cor 
responding  increase  and  development  of  the  heart 
and  of  the  home  which  alone  can  make  a  great  peo 
ple.  The  nation,  too,  has  had  its  growth  and  de 
velopment;  some  new  lines  of  progress  have  been 
indicated.  Within  the  past  few  weeks  I  had  the 
pleasure  of  lifting  over  one  of  the  greatest  merchant 
steamships  that  floats  upon  the  sea  that  flag  of 
beauty  that  hangs  before  me.  I  regarded  it  as  the 
precursor  and  pioneer  of  the  return  of  that  time  when 
the  American  flag  was  seen  in  every  sea  and  the 
American  navy  was  held  in  estimation  by  other  na 
tions.  Only  one  week  ago  I  had  the  pleasure  of 
seeing  the  greatest  ship  that  has  ever  been  built  in 
America — a  battleship,  which,  when  completed,  would 
be  able  to  cope  with  the  greatest  ship  that  England 
has  upon  the  sea — float  from  her  ways  into  the  Del 
aware  with  the  name  "Indiana"  on  her  side.  I  will 
not  speak  to  you  of  those  duties  which  these  years 
of  absence  have  brought  me,  or  of  their  perform 
ance.  I  left  you  with  but  one  certainty,  and  I  re 
turn  with  that — the  certainty  that  I  had  no  other 


360  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

motive  in  my  heart  than  the  honor  of  the  flag,  the 
sacredness  of  the  constitution  and  the  prosperity  of 
all  our  people.  I  come  to  you  again  accompanied 
by  a  great  sorrow,  but  I  trust — and  your  presence 
here  gives  me  your  witness — unattended  by  any 
shame  growing  out  of  the  discharge  of  my  public 
duties.  Add  to  your  great  kindness  and  to  this 
great  welcome  which  you  have  extended  to  me  to 
day,  the  further  kindness  of  excusing  me  from  at 
tempting  to  speak  to  you  further.  I  shall  be  glad 
to  carry  out  the  arrangement  of  the  committee,  and 
to  take  as  many  of  you  as  I  may  by  the  hand,  and 
in  these  days  and  weeks  that  are  to  come  to  meet 
you  in  my  home,  in  your  homes,  as  opportunity  may 
offer.  May  God  bless  you  all. 


TO  THE  GRAND  ARMY  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 

Tomlinson  Hall,  Indianapolis,  September  4,  1893 

COMMANDER  WEISSERT,  DELEGATES  TO  THE  TWEN 
TY-SEVENTH  ANNUAL  ENCAMPMENT  OF  THE  GRAND 
ARMY  OF  THE  REPUBLIC,  COMRADES  AND  FELLOW- 
CITIZENS — Has  not  Indianapolis  already  spoken  to 
you?  Have  not  these  gay  streets,  these  waving  flags, 
these  smiling  faces,  given  you  assurance  of  welcome 
to  the  capital  of  Indiana?  Can  I  add  anything  to 
that  magnificent  demonstration  that  has  already 
greeted  your  eyes? 

We  welcome  you  to-night  because  we  are  in  accord 
with  you.  A  distinguished  senator  of  the  United 
States  objected  to  the  Chinese  because  they  did  not,  as 
he  said,  "homologate."  I  want  to  assure  you  that  you 
do,  thoroughly,  "homologate"  with  us.  To  make  a 
reception  altogether  pleasant  to  hosts  and  guests,  there 
are  mutual  qualities  to  be  thought  of.  There  must 
be  sympathy  between  the  two;  and  I  declare  to  you 
that  citizens  of  Indianapolis  and  of  the  state  are  in 
thorough  sympathy  with  the  organization  and  the 

361 


362  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

aims  of  the  Grand  Army  of  the  Republic. 
We  welcome  you  because  you  have  the 
"arduous  greatness  of  things  done"  in  behalf  of  the 
flag  and  of  the  country.  I  see  before 
me  men  who  stood  with  Thomas  in  the  last  shock 
at  Chickamauga  who  hurled  back  that  advancing  and, 
for  a  time,  irresistible  wave  of  rebel  bayonets  that 
threatened  to  sweep  our  army  into  the  Tennessee. 
I  look  into  the  faces  of  men  to-night  who  stood  in 
the  bloody  angle  at  Gettysburg,  and  threw  back  that 
desperate  charge,  that,  had  it  won,  would  have 
opened  Washington  to  the  rebel  army.  I  look 
into  the  faces  of  men  to-night  who,  in  their  in 
dividual  service  in  the  army,  have  performed  deeds 
of  heroism  and  courage;  who,  riding  with  flashing 
saber  over  rebel  guns,  have  carried  the  stars  and 
stripes  to  victory.  I  look  into  the  faces  of 
men  who  at  the  bayonet's  point  have  pushed 
back  their  country's  enemies  and  have  plant 
ed  its  flag  on  rebel  ramparts.  I  look  into  the  faces 
of  men  who  have  shed  their  blood  and  dropped  their 
limbs  upon  the  battlefield,  and  who  walk  among  us 
to-night,  maimed,  dismembered,  that  the  honor  of 
the  flag  might  be  untarnished  and  the  union  un 
broken.  Can  Indiana  fail  to  welcome  such? 
Our  hearts  and  our  homes  are  open  to  you. 
If  we  bowed  the  knee  to  any,  it  would  be  to  you. 
Can  it  be  possible  that,  while  the  survivors 
of  this  great  struggle  are  still  with  us,  while 


THE   GRAND   'ARMY   OF   THE   REPUBLIC  363 

they  walk  our  streets,  a  generation  has  come  on  for 
getful  of  their  great  achievements?  Has  the  moth 
of  avarice,  the  canker  of  greed,  so  eaten  into  the 
hearts  of  this  generation  that  they  are  unmindful  of 
these  men?  God  forbid.  When  the  great 
struggle  of  the  revolutionary  war  was  over, 
this  country  was  bankrupt,  the  notes  that  it  had 
issued  were  valueless,  it  was  without  credit  at  home 
or  abroad,  and  too  many  turned  away  from  the  just 
claims  of  the  soldiers  that  had  followed  Washing 
ton  from  Cambridge  to  Yorktown.  The  army  pleaded 
in  vain  for  justice  at  the  hands  of  the  government 
it  had  saved,  but  they  had  to  deal  then  with  a  bank 
rupt  government,  without  the  power  to  redeem  its 
pledges,  an  impoverished  people  who  had  spent  their 
all  already  in  that  eight  years'  struggle. 

No  such  excuse  can  be  offered  now.  This  coun 
try  is  rich  in  the  great  resources  of  these  accumu 
lated  years.  Our  people  can  find  no  excuse  for  in 
gratitude  toward  the  soldiers  of  the  land  in  their 
inability  .to  meet  their  just  demands.  You  are  as 
sembled  to  take  thought  for  those  things  that  con 
cern  the  interests  of  your  comrades  comprising  this 
great  organization,  and  of  those  who  stand  without 
it.  The  American  soldier  of  the  civil  war  has  not 
been  commercially  greedy.  He  was  not  tempted  to 
service  by  his  monthly  stipend.  If  there  had  been 
no  other  impulse  than  eleven  or  thirteen  dollars  a 
month  we  should  have  had  no  army.  The  men  that 


364  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

went  to  the  front  were  not  impelled  by  sordid  pur 
poses  of  hope  or  gain.  And  when  the  war  was  over, 
their  thought  was  not  of  dependence  upon  the  govern 
ment,  but  upon  their  own  right  arms.  I  saw 
that  great  parade,  with  the  gallant  and  la 
mented  General  Sherman  at  its  head,  sweep  by  the 
treasury  of  the  United  States,  and  there  was  not  a 
greedy  eye  turned  toward  it.  Every  eye  was 
toward  home,  and  the  hurrying  footsteps  were 
bent  thither.  Every  boy  who  had  been  spared 
in  the  great  struggle  was  anxious  to  be  again  at  the 
plow,  or  in  the  shop,  or  in  the  office,  to  take  up 
again  the  work  he  had  laid  down  that  his  country 
might  live.  Their  hearts  went  faster  than  the 
quickstep  of  the  march,  on  to  the  humble  homes 
from  which  they  had  gone  out,  to  the  loved  ones 
they  had  left  there.  And  all  these  years,  in  every 
community,  in  every  trade,  the  soldier  has  been  a 
workman;  his  family  have  eaten  of  the  fruits  of  his 
own  toil.  As  long  as  God  gave  him  strength  of 
arm,  he  wrought  and  ate  the  bread  of  independence. 
Only  when  he  became  the  veteran  of  time,  when — as 
I  have  said  before — the  parallels  of  age  drew  close 
about  the  citadel  of  life,  and  the  arm  that  had 
wrought  so  bravely  for  his  country  and  so  sturdily 
for  his  family,  lost  its  strength;  only  then  did  he 
turn  his  hopeful  eye  toward  the  government  for  re 
lief.  The  Grand  Army  of  the  Republic  has 
rightly  claimed  that  the  man  who  fell  by  the 


THE   GRAND   ARMY   OF   THE   REPUBLIC  365 

way  in  the  battle  of  life,  from  disease,  or  casualty, 
or  advancing  years,  and  lost  the  capacity  to  main 
tain  himself,  should  be  cared  for  by  the  nation  he 
helped  to  save,  and  not  be  dependent  upon 
the  township  poor- fund.  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss 
the  pension  question.  Many  considerations  limit  me 
in  the  discussion  of  it;  but  I  may  say  this,  that 
when  congress,  in  its  generous  recognition  of  the 
rightful  claims  of  the  soldier,  has  passed  a  law  for 
his  benefit,  we  may  and  we  will  demand  that  it  shall 
be  beneficially  construed.  It  is  a  familiar 
maxim  of  the  law  that  remedial  legisla 
tion  is  to  have  a  favorable  interpretation  in  the  in 
terest  of  the  evil  to  be  remedied.  Secondly,  we 
may  and  we  do  insist  that  in  the  administration  of 
the  law  the  soldier's  integrity  and  honor  shall  not 
be  wantonly  impeached.  A  presumption  will 
be  indulged  in  his  favor.  We  do  not  ask 
that  any  who  have  fraudulently  obtained  a  place 
upon  the  pension  roll  shall  be  kept  there,  but  we 
do  ask  that  that  other  familiar  maxim  of  the  law,  that 
fraud  is  to  be  proved  and  not  presumed,  shall  be 
applied  to  the  soldier's  claim.  These  general  prin 
ciples — and  I  can  not  go  into  details — I  think  must 
be  acceptable  to  every  right-thinking,  patriotic  man. 
We  are  impatient  only  with  those  who  start  with 
a  prejudice  against  the  soldier. 

Now,  my  comrades,  I  have  to  talk  again  to-night, 
and  you  will  excuse  me  from  further  speech.     You 


366  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

are  welcome.  Indiana  and  Indianapolis,  since  that 
shot  at  Sumter  reverberated  through  our  streets, 
have  been  loyal  to  the  flag,  the  constitution  and 
their  defenders.  We  said  of  those  who  went  to  the 
front  amid  the  blessings  and  tears  of  the  commu 
nity,  "Brave  boys  are  they,  gone  to  their  country's 
call."  There  was  no  voice  of  detraction  then.  We 
welcomed  those  who  were  spared  to  return,  with 
open  arms;  the  great  war  governor  of  Indiana 
spoke  for  its  citizens  earnest,  enthusiastic  words  of 
commendation  and  love.  That  your  stay  here  among 
us  may  be  pleasant;  that  the  meeting  of  this  en 
campment  may  be  characterized  with  good  temper 
and  with  hearty  agreement,  is  my  sincere  hope. 
Your  expressions  should  be  characterized  by  tem 
perance,  soberness  and  conservatism,  and  at  the 
same  time  by  such  clearness  and  decision  that  no 
one  shall  misunderstand  what  the  Grand  Army 
means.  I  hope  to  see  many  of  you  personally  dur 
ing  your  stay;  and,  if  we  can  send  you  from  us 
after  your  work  is  complete,  with  pleasant  impres 
sions  of  this  city  that  we  love  so  much,  we  shall  be 
glad  that  you  have  come,  and  will  cherish  long  in 
our  remembrance  this  great  event. 


MILITARY  INSTRUCTION  IN  SCHOOLS  AND 
COLLEGES 

The  Century  Magazine,  November  3,1893 

You  ask  my  opinion  of  the  suggestion  of  Lafayette 
Post,  G.  A.  R.,  of  New  York  city,  that  military  in 
struction  and  drill  be  used  in  all  schools  for  boys.  It 
is  good  in  every  aspect  of  it — good  for  the  boys, 
good  for  the  schools,  and  good  for  the  country.  A 
free,  erect,  graceful  carriage  of  the  body  is  an  ac 
quisition  and  a  delight.  It  has  a  value  in  commerce 
as  well  as  in  war.  Arms  and  legs  are  distressing 
appendages  to  a  boy  under  observation,  until  he  has 
been  taught  the  use  of  them  in  repose.  The  chin  is 
too  neighborly  with  the  chest,  and  the  eyes  find  the 
floor  too  soon;  they  need  to  have  the  fifteen  paces 
marked  off.  The  sluggish  need  to  be  quickened, 
the  quick  taught  to  stand,  and  the  willful  to  have 
no  will.  The  disputatious  need  to  learn  that  there 
are  conditions  where  debate  is  inadmissible;  the 
power  and  beauty  there  is  in  a  company — moved 
by  one  man  and  as  one  man.  Athletic  sports 
have  their  due,  perhaps  undue,  attention  in 

367 


368  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

most  of  the  colleges  and  high  schools ;  but  in  the  graded 
schools,  within  my  observation,  exercise  is  casual  and 
undirected.  None  of  these  exercises  or  sports  is, 
however,  a  substitute  for  military  drill;  and  some  of 
them  create  a  new  need  for  it.  A  good  oarsman 
need  not  be  erect  or  graceful;  a  good  arm  and 
plenty  of  wind  meet  his  needs.  The  champion  "cy 
clist"  is  not  apt  to  have  square  shoulders.  The  foot 
ball  captain  is  so  padded  that  a  safe  judgment  can 
hardly  be  formed  as  to  his  natural  "lines";  but  a 
good  leg  and  momentum  seem  to  me — a  non-expert — 
to  be  his  distinctive  marks.  In  baseball  the  pitcher 
seems,  to  an  occasional  observer,  to  have  parted  with 
all  his  natural  grace  to  endow  the  curved  ball. 

A  military  drill  develops  the  whole  man,  head, 
chest,  arms  and  legs,  proportionately;  and  so  pro 
motes  symmetry,  and  corrects  the  excesses  of  other 
forms  of  exercise.  It  teaches  quickness  of  eye  and 
ear,  hand  and  foot;  qualifies  men  to  step  and  act  in 
unison;  teaches  subordination;  and,  best  of  all,  qual 
ifies  a  man  to  serve  his  country.  The  flag  now  gen 
erally  floats  above  the  school-house;  and  what  more 
appropriate  than  that  the  boys  should  be  instructed 
in  the  defense  of  it?  It  will  not  lower  their  grade 
marks  in  their  book  recitations,  I  am  sure.  If  rightly 
used,  it  will  wake  them  up,  make  them  more  healthy, 
develop  their  pride,  and  promote  school  order.  In 
the  centennial  parades  in  New  York,  in  April,  1889, 
the  best  marching  I  saw  was  that  of  some  of  your 


MILITARY   INSTRUCTION   IN    SCHOOLS  369 

school  children.  The  alignment  of  the  company  front 
was  better  than  that  of  the  regulars  or  of  the  Sev 
enth  regiment. 

If  all  the  school  boys  of  the  North  had,  from 
1830  on,  been  instructed  in  the  schools  of  the  sol 
dier  and  of  the  company,  and  in  the  manual  of  arms, 
how  much  precious  time  would  have  been  saved  in 
organizing  the  Union  army  in  1861.  We  were  in 
a  very  low  state,  as  a  people,  in  military  knowledge 
and  training  when  the  great  civil  war  broke  out — 
volunteers  in  plenty,  but  few  soldiers.  I  very  well 
remember  how  hard  it  was  for  me  to  learn  which 
was  the  right  of  the  company,  and  to  understand 
why  it  continued  to  be  the  right  when  the  right 
about  had  made  it  the  left;  and  how  we  had,  in  1862, 
to  send  to  a  distant  city  to  find  a  drill-master  com 
petent  to  instruct  the  company  officers,  not  one  of 
whom  could  go  through  the  manual  of  arms;  and 
how  the  regiment,  after  a  few  half-learned  lessons  in 
the  company  drill,  was  sent  to  the  seat  of  war  with 
guns  which  they  had  never  loaded  or  fired.  Fortu 
nately,  the  men  had  the  American  adaptability  and 
quickness,  and  our  adversary  only  a  little  better  prep 
aration.  It  will  not  be  safe  to  allow  war  to  come  upon 
us  again  in  that  state,  for  war's  pace  has  greatly 
quickened,  and  the  arms  of  precision  now  in  use  call 
for  a  trained  soldier.  Under  our  system  we  shall 
never  have  a  large  standing  army,  and  our  strength 
and  safety  are  in  a  general  dissemination  of  mili- 


37O  VIEWS  OF  'AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

tary  knowledge  and  training  among  the  people. 
What  the  man  and  citizen  ought  to  know  in  order 
to  the  full  discharge  of  his  duty  to  his  country  should 
be  imparted  to  the  boy.  Nothing  will  so  much  aid 
to  enlarge  our  state  militia,  and  to  give  it  efficiency 
and  character,  as  the  plan  proposed.  The  military 
taste  and  training  acquired  in  the  school  will  carry 
our  best  young  men  into  the  militia  organizations 
and  make  those  organizations  reliable  conservators  of 
public  order,  and  ready  and  competent  defenders  of 
the  national  honor. 


AT  THE  BANQUET  OF  THE  NEW  ENGLAND 
SOCIETY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 

Continental  Hotel,  Philadelphia,  December  22,  1893 

MR.  PRESIDENT  AND  GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  NEW 
ENGLAND  SOCIETY  OF  PHILADELPHIA — When  my 
good  friend  and  your  good  neighbor  and  presi 
dent,  Mr.  Charles  Emory  Smith,  invited  me  to 
be  present  to-night,  I  felt  a  special  demand  upon 
me  to  yield  to  his  request.  I  thought  I  owed  him 
some  reparation  for  appointing  him  to  an  office, 
the  emoluments  of  which  did  not  pay  his  expenses. 
Your  cordial  welcome  to-night  crowns  three  days  of 
most  pleasurable  stay  in  this  good  city  of  Philadelphia. 
The  days  have  been  a  little  crowded.  I  think  there 
have  been  what  our  friends  of  "the  four  hundred" 
would  probably  call  eight 'distinct  functions,  but  your 
cordiality  and  the  kind  words  of  your  presiding  officer 
quite  restore  my  fatigue  and  suggest  to  me  that  I  shall 
rightly  repay  your  kindness  by  making  a  very  short 
speech. 

It  is  my  opinion  that  these  members  of  the  New 
England  Society  are  very  creditable  descendants  of 


372  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

the  forefathers.  I  am  not  right  sure  that  the  fore 
fathers  would  share  this  opinion  if  they  were 
here,  but  that  would  be  because  of  the  fact 
that,  notwithstanding  the  load  of  substantial  vir 
tues  which  they  carried  through  life,  their  taste  had 
not  been  highly  cultivated. 

I  dread  this  function  which  I  am  now  attempting 
to  discharge  more  than  any  other  that  ever  meets 
me  in  life.  The  after-dinner  speaker  is  unlike  the 
poet;  he  is  not  born,  he  is  made.  I  am 
frequently  compelled  to  meet  in  disastrous  com 
petition  about  some  dinner  table  gentlemen  who 
have  already  had  their  speeches  set  up  in  the  news 
paper  offices.  They  are  brought  to  you  as  if  they 
were  fresh  from  the  lip.  You  are  served  with  what 
they  would  have  you  believe  to  be  "impromptu 
boned  turkey."  And  yet,  if  you  could  see 
into  the  recesses  of  their  intellectual  kitchens, 
.you  would  see  the  days  of  careful  preparation  which 
have  been  given  to  those  spontaneous  utterances. 
The  after-dinner  speaker  needs  to  find  some 
where  some  one  un  worked  joker's  quarry, 
where  some  jokes  have  been  left  without  a  label  on 
them.  He  needs  to  acquire  the  art  of  seeming  to 
pluck,  as  he  goes  along  in  the  progress  of  his  speech, 
as  by  the  wayside,  some  flower  of  rhetoric;  he  seems 
to  have  passed  it  and  to  have  plucked  it  casually, 
but  it  is  a  boutonniere  with  tin-foil  around  it. 
You  can  see  upon  close  inspection  the 


NEW   ENGLAND   SOCIETY   OF   PENNSYLVANIA    373 

mark  of  the  planer  on  his  well-turned  sentences. 
The  competition  with  gentlemen  who  are  so  cul 
tivated  is  severe  upon  one  who  must  speak  absolute 
ly  upon  the  impulse  of  the  occasion.  It  is  either  in 
capacity  or  downright  laziness  that  has  kept  me 
from  competing  in  this  field  which  I  have  described. 

It  occurred  to  me  to-day  to  inquire  why  you  had  to 
associate  six  states  in  order  to  get  up  a  respectable 
society.  Now,  .my  friend  Halstead  and  I  have  no 
such  trouble.  We  are  Ohio  born,  and  we  do  not 
need  to  associate  any  other  state  in  order  to  get  up 
a  good  society  wherever  there  is  a  civil  list  of  the 
government.  If  you  would  adopt  the  liberal  charter 
measure  of  the  Ohio  society  I  have  no  doubt  you 
could  subdivide  yourselves  into  six  good  societies. 
The  Ohio  society  admits  to  membership  everybody 
who  has  lived  voluntarily  six  months  in  Ohio.  No 
involuntary  resident  is  permitted  to  come  in. 

But  this  association  of  these  states  and  the  name 
New  England  is  part  of  an  old  classification  of  the 
states  that  we  used  to  have  in  the  geographies,  and 
all  of  that  classification  is  gone  except  New  En 
gland  and  the  South.  The  West  has  disappeared, 
and  the  Middle  West  can  not  be  identified.  Where 
is  the  West?  Why,  just  now  at  the  point  of  that 
long  chain  of  islands  that  put  off  from  the  Alaskan 
coast,  and,  if  I  am  to  credit  what  I  read,  for  I  have 
no  sources  of  information  now  except  the  not  abso 
lutely  reliable  newspaper  press,  there  are  some  who 


374  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

believe  that  there  are  wicked  men  who  want  to 
hitch  the  end  of  that  chain  on  to  another  island  far 
ther  out  in  the  sea.  If  that  should  be  done,  the  West 
would  become  the  East,  for  I  think  the  Orient  has 
generally  been  counted  to  be  the  East. 

I  would  not,  however,  suggest  a  division  of  the 
New  England  Society.  It  is  well  enough  to  keep 
up  an  association  that  is  one,  not  only  of  neighbor 
hood  and  historical  associations,  but  of  sentiment: 
Let  the  New  England  Society  live,  and  I  fancy  it 
will  not  be  long  till  you  enjoy  the  distinction  of  be 
ing  the  only  great  subdivision  of  the  states.  For, 
my  fellow-citizens,  whatever  barriers  prejudice  may 
raise,  whatever  obstruction  the  interests  of  men  may 
interpose,  whatever  may  be  the  outrages  of  cruelty 
to  stay  the  march  of  New  England,  that  which  made 
the  subdivision  of  the  Southern  states  and  all  that 
separated  them  from  the  states  of  the  West  and  of 
the  North  will  be  obliterated. 

I  am  not  sure,  though  the  story  runs  so,  that  I 
have  a  New  England  strain.  The  fact  is  that  I  have 
recently  come  to  the  conclusion  that  my  family  was 
a  little  overweighted  with  ancestry,  and  I  have  been 
looking  after  posterity. 

One  serious  word,  gentlemen.  The  New  England 
character  and  the  influence  of  New  England  men  and 
women  have  made  their  impress  upon  the  whole  coun 
try;  for  even  in  the  South,  during  times  of  slavery, 
educated  men  and  women  from  New  England  were 


NEW   ENGLAND   SOCIETY   OF   PENNSYLVANIA    375 

the  tutors  and  instructors  of  the  youth  of  the  South 
in  the  plantation  home.  The  love  of  education,  the 
resolve  that  it  should  be  general,  the  love  of  home 
with  all  the  pure  and  sacred  influences  that  cluster 
about  it,  are  elements  in  the  New  England  char 
acter  that  have  a  saving  force  incalculable  in  this 
great  nation  in  which  we  live. 

Your  civil  institutions  have  been  free  and  high  and 
clean,  from  the  old  town-meeting  days  until  now. 
New  England  has  believed  in  and  practices  the  free 
election  and  the  fair  count. 

But  gentlemen,  I  can  not  enumerate  all  of  your 
virtues;  time  is  brief  and  the  category  long.  Will 
you  permit  me  to  thank  you  and  your  honored 
president  for  your  gracious  reception  to-night? 


FOUNDERS'  DAY  AT  STANFORD 
UNIVERSITY 

THE  FIRST  MEMORIAL  EXERCISES  HELD  AT  THE 
UNIVERSITY 

March  9,  1894 

PRESIDENT  JORDAN,  LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN — 
What  I  shall  say  to-day  will  be  the  unstudied  tribute  of 
a  friend  to  the  memory  of  a  friend.  My  acquaint 
ance  with  Governor  Stanford  was  not  long — a  half 
score  of  years  would  cover  it — but  I  saw  him  dur 
ing  those  years  under  many  varying  conditions, 
and  was  now  and  then  brought  into  such  touch 
with  him  that  his  mind  and  heart  were  very  fully 
revealed  to  me. 

This  visit  to  California,  to  Palo  Alto,  to  the  Le- 
land  Stanford  Junior  University,  is  one  that  I  have 
looked  forward  to  for  a  year  with  great  interest 
and  with  great  anticipations.  Not  a  little  of  that 
interest  was  centered  in  the  fact  that  the  arrange 
ment  involved  a  meeting  with  Governor  Stanford 
here  at  the  scene  of  his  greatest  work.  My  com 
ing  is  saddened  by  his  absence.  As  I  remarked  the 

376 


FOUNDERS     DAY   AT   STANFORD  377 

other  day  to  the  students,  I  realize  now  first  that 
he  is  dead.  When  one  dies  at  a  distance  from  us  we 
hear  of  the  event  and  our  minds  receive  it  as  a  truth, 
but  the  heart  does  not  realize  it  until  we  come  to 
some  place  where  we  might  expect  to  meet  our 
friend.  It  is  the  vacant  chair  in  the  family;  it  is  the 
absence  from  accustomed  places  that  brings  to  us 
the  realization  of  the  loss  of  a  friend.  I  had  learned 
to  have  a  very  high  regard  for  Governor  Stanford; 
to  see  in  him  some  of  the  noblest  attributes  that 
adorn  human  nature,  and  chief  among  these  was 
the  gentle,  loving  character  of  his  nature.  Too  often 
those  who  have  been  enabled  by  successful  business 
enterprise  to  gather  about  them  all  the  luxuries  of 
wealth  so  that  everything  is  tributary  to  them,  come 
to  be  unsympathetic  and  forgetful  of  their  fellow- 
men,  to  be  narrow  and  selfish.  Such  was  not  the 
influence  of  his  great  possessions  upon  him.  His 
wealth  was  a  vehicle  of  charity.  We  have  not  a 
few  families  in  this  country  who,  from  generation 
to  generation,  seem  to  concentrate  all  their  ener 
gies  upon  the  accumulation  of  great  fortunes  and 
the  entailment  of  them  upon  their  children.  Such 
as  these  may  be  stars  of  the  first  magnitude  when 
only  four  hundred  are  assembled,  but  the  Lick  tele 
scope  can  not  find  them  when  the  world  is  gathered. 
Wealth  has  come  to  be  condemned;  to  be  under 
suspicion,  because  of  its  selfishness;  not  because  it 
is  in  itself  a  thing  that  has  not  high  and  great  uses 


378  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

— not  because  it  is  necessarily  a  barrier  over  which 
human  hearts  may  not  pass. 

The  considerateness  of  Governor  Stanford,  dur 
ing  the  four  years  that  I  spent  last  at  Washington, 
always  touched  me.  He  seemed  to  realize  the  bur 
dens  of  the  great  office  which  I  held,  and  always 
approached  me  in  a  manner  almost  apologetic,  that 
he  should  intrude  any  further  care  or  business  upon 
my  attention.  In  all  his  relations  to  men  in  public 
life  he  was  modest,  kindly  and  considerate,  and 
often  added  a  suggestion  of  practical  wisdom  to  the 
consultation  that  roused  our  admiration  and  not  in 
frequently  secured  our  adherence. 

What  a  great  thing  it  is  when  one  may  have  a 
Founders*  Day  to  commemorate  his  birth!  How 
short  human  life  is,  and  how  inadequate!  When 
men  die  we  say  their  earthly  work  is  ended;  and 
for  a  majority,  and  to  a  majority,  to  our  limited 
observation,  it  is  largely  true.  Of  course,  no  good 
life  ends  at  death;  but  the  threads  of  influence  such 
lives  have  started  extend  over  limited  spaces,  touch  a 
few  hearts,  and  are  undiscovered  to  the  common 
eye.  There  is  not  time  in  a  human  life  to  complete 
a  great  work.  There  must  be  succession.  Perpe 
tuity  is  essential  to  great  works;  and  no  one  more 
fully  realized  this  than  Governor  Stanford.  He 
was  an  organizer.  His  thoughts  were  large,  and  he 
understood  the  philosophy  of  bringing  other  men 
into  partnership  with  his  designs,  of  enlarging  the 


FOUNDERS'  DAY  AT  STANFORD  379 

individual  touch  by  co-operation.  Take  the  two 
great  enterprises  with  which  he  was  associated.  The 
transcontinental  railway — what  a  wide  and  strong 
organization  was  necessary  to  its  accomplishment! 
Not  one  man!  What  could  one  pick  or  one  shovel 
or  one  engineer  do  in  the  construction  of  that  great 
enterprise?  It  was  a  scheme  that  needed  to  have 
brought  into  it  many  men  of  diverse  mental  attain 
ments,  and  the  muscle  of  many  laborers,  and  all 
these  into  a  system  that  worked  like  a  perfected  ma 
chine — all  this  he  did.  And  this  great  highway  of 
commerce,  which  in  the  future  years  shall  bear  an 
increasing  traffic  between  the  East  and  the  West, 
and  shall  carry,  with  increasing  comfort,  speed  and 
safety,  generations  yet  to  be  born,  is  one  of  the 
great  works  that  will  perpetually  praise  him.  This 
is  one  of  his  biographers,  and  it  has  written  on  the 
rocky  faces  of  the  Sierra  canons  the  story  of  his 
participation  in  one  of  the  great  achievements  of  the 
century. 

This  university  is  his  other  and  better  biographer 
— not  a  highway  of  commerce — but  a  highway  of 
the  soul,  upon  which  the  aspiring  feet  may  perpet 
ually  be  borne  to  the  heights  of  truth  and  learning. 
And  here,  how  perfectly  can  we  see  this  fine  faculty 
of  design;  of  organization;  of  bringing  in  that 
which  is  needful;  of  using  the  element  of  perpetu 
ity.  For,  when  these  learned  men  who  now  instruct, 
and  this  generation  of  students,  have  passed  away, 


380  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

there  will  be  new  instructors  standing  yet  nearer  to 
the  summits  of  truth,  to  instruct  a  generation  of 
students  full  of  a  nobler  enthusiasm  for  learning 
and  for  the  elevation  of  the  race.  It  is  as  men  as 
sociate  themselves  with  such  institutions  that  their 
memory  is  perpetuated.  Why  is  Washington  freshly 
and  ever  in  our  hearts?  Why  is  his  natal  day  per 
petually  kept  in  remembrance?  Because  he  associ 
ated  himself  with  the  deliverance  of  the  colonies 
from  foreign  domination  and  oppression,  and  with 
the  institution  of  a  system  of  government  that  has 
brought  liberty,  happiness  and  freedom  to  this  great 
continent,  and  will  carry  them  on  to  generations  to 
come.  Napoleon  we  read  of;  we  analyze  his  char 
acter  and  study  his  military  genius  much  as  one  of 
these  professors — and  with  little  more  reverence — 
might  examine  and  explain  to  a  class  the  articulated 
skeleton  of  some  unknown  man.  He  did  not  asso 
ciate  himself  with  any  great  thing  in  the  interest 
of  man,  with  any  great  state  or  institution  that  had 
perpetuity. 

But  I  will  not  detain  you  longer.  Our  sorrow 
for  the  loss  of  a  friend  is  greatly  mitigated  when 
we  can  assemble  as  we  do  to-day,  surrounded  by 
evidences  that,  not  only  in  the  family  circle,  but 
throughout  all  this  coast,  throughout  all  these  states, 
and,  indeed,  throughout  the  world,  he  will  be  held  in 
perpetual  veneration  and  respect. 

One  loved  child  was  lost,   but  the  promise — the 


FOUNDERS*   DAY   AT   STANFORD  381 

Abrahamic  promise — shall  be  fulfilled  to  him — his 
children  shall  be  more  than  the  sands  of  the  sea,  for 
multitude. 


IN  PRESENTING  MR.  McKINLEY, 

Tomlinson  Hall,  Indianapolis,  September  25, 1894 

MY  FELLOW-CITIZENS — The  delightful  duty  has 
been  assigned  me  by  the  state  central  committee  of 
the  Republican  party  of  Indiana  to  preside  over  this 
great  meeting.  I  am  to  be  its  chairman,  not  its 
speaker,  and  I  congratulate  you  on  that  fact. 
I  brought  the  distinguished  gentleman,  to  whom  you 
are  to  listen,  to  this  hall  this  afternoon  without  send 
ing  any  courier  in  advance  to  find  whether  there  were 
enough  people  for  him  to  speak  to. 

I  notice  in  the  audience  here  to-day,  with  great 
satisfaction,  the  presence  of  many  of  our  older  fel 
low-citizens.  The  old  men  are  fond  of  telling  of 
the  "good  old  times,"  but  the  times  to  which  they  look 
back  with  so  much  delight  are  glorified  in  the  fact 
that  the  processes  of  nature  and  of  providence  have 
covered  the  things  that  were  hard  and  brought  out 
in  the  memory  those  things  that  were  sweet  and 
pleasant.  But  the  good  times  which  I  have  in  mind 
are  not  good  old  times,  but  very  young  good  times, 

382 


IN  PRESENTING  MR.   MCKINLEY  '383 

so  young  that  only  the  unweaned  babes  have  no 
memory  of  them.  Only  two  years  ago  this  country 
was  not  only  the  most  prosperous  country  in  the 
world — for  that  it  had  been  before — but  it  stood 
upon  the  highest  pinnacle  of  prosperity  that  it  had 
ever  before  attained.  This  is  not  the  ver 
dict  of  politicians;  it  is  the  verdict  of  the  com 
mercial  reporter;  it  is  the  expressed  opinion  of  those 
men  who  make  a  profession  of  studying  business 
conditions.  The  last  two  years  have  been  years  of 
distress  and  disaster. 

The  losses  of  them  defy  the  skill  of  the  calcu 
lator.  It  has  been  said,  I  think  not  without  reason, 
that  they  exceed  the  cost  of  the  great  civil  war. 
These  losses  have  not  been  class  losses;  they  have 
been  distributed.  The  holder  of  stocks  and  bonds 
has  found  his  wealth  shrinking,  and  so  has  the 
farmer,  and  the  workingman  has  found  his  wages 
shrinking.  There  has  been  a  general  participation 
in  the  calamities  of  the  last  two  years  as  there  was 
a  general  participation  in  the  prosperity  of  the  pre 
ceding  years.  The  great  national  debts,  like  those  of 
the  civil  war,  have  sometimes  their  adequate  compen 
sation.  Great  as  was  the  cost  of  the  war  for  the 
Union,  we  feel  that  it  was  adequately  compensated 
in  the  added  glory  that  was  given  to  the  flag  and  in 
the  added  security  that  was  given  to  our  civil  insti 
tutions  and  the  unity  of  the  nation. 

But  the  losses  of  these  last  two  years  have  no  such 


384  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

compensating  thought.  There  is  no  good  to  be  got 
ten  out  of  them,  except  for  guidance.  They  seem  to 
be  of  retributive  nature,  like  the  swamps  into  which 
the  traveler  has  unwarily  driven,  that  have  no  amel 
iorating  circumstances,  except  as  they  teach  him  to 
keep  on  the  foot-hill  and  to  follow  the  road  that  is 
on  the  hilltops.  Our  people  seem  to  be  inclined  to 
make  the  most  that  can  be  made  out  of  these  years 
of  disaster.  We  were  told  in  the  old  times  the  rich 
were  getting  richer  and  the  poor  poorer;  and  to  cure 
that  imaginary  ill  our  political  opponents  have 
brought  on  a  time  when  everybody  is  getting  poorer. 
I  think  that  I  remember  to  have  heard  of  an  inscrip 
tion  once  upon  a  tombstone  that  ran  something  like 
this:  "I  was  well;  I  thought  to  be  better;  I  took 
medicine,  and  here  I  lie." 

Our  Democratic  friends  have  passed  a  tariff  bill 
that  is  approved — so  far  as  I  can  learn — by  only  six 
Democratic  senators  and  nobody  else.  We 
hear  of  the  little  coterie  of  senators — whose 
names  I  could  not  mention,  perhaps,  for  they  have 
not  been  well  identified,  but  their  numbers  has  gen 
erally  been  fixed  at  a  round  half  dozen — who  de 
cided  what  the  tariff  bill  should  be,  and  they  are 
pleased  with  it,  and  nobody  else.  Mr.  Cleve 
land  has  repudiated  it,  and  has  declared  that  it 
involves  "perfidy  and  dishonor;"  that  it  was  shame 
ful  in  its  character  and  in  the  influences  that  pro 
duced  it;  that  he  would  not  even  put  his  name  to  it. 


IN  PRESENTING  MR.   MCKINLEY  '385 

All  of  the  leading  Democratic  papers  in  trie  country 
have  condemned  it — both  of  the  old  stalwart  variety 
and  of  the  mugwump  variety.  The  Democratic  chair 
man  of  the  ways  and  means  committee  has  con 
demned  it,  and  the  entire  Democratic  majority  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  Now  that  is  a  great  mis 
fortune.  It  is  a  misfortune  that  the  Democratic  party 
was  not  able  to  evolve  a  tariff  bill  that  that  party 
would  accept  as  a  settlement  of  the  tariff  question. 
But  it  is  not  accepted  as  a  settlement. 

In  the  very  nature  of  things,  a  bill  thus  passed, 
and  thus  characterized,  can  not  be  a  settlement;  and 
already  we  have  the  proclamation  from  Mr.-  Cleve 
land,  and  from  Mr.  Wilson,  that  this  is  only  the 
beginning  of  the  crusade  against  American  indus 
tries;  that  the  war  is  to  go  on.  Now  that  is  a  great 
misfortune.  If  we  could  only  prove  by  our  Demo 
cratic  friends  that  we  were  in  the  bottom  of  the 
well,  dark  and  damp  and  dismal  as  it  was,  we  would 
have  begun  to  look  up  and  see  whether  we  could 
not  find  some  star  of  hope;  we  would  have  begun 
to  anoint  our  bruises,  and  try  to  build  some  scaf 
fold  by  which  we  might  try  to  climb  out.  But  we 
are  told  that  there  are  greater  depths  yet  in  store 
for  us.  And  so  this  country  is  to  be  held  in  a  state 
of  suspense  upon  this  question. 

It  can  be  ended  in  just  one  way,  and  that  is  by 
overwhelming  Republican  victories  in  November. 
[When  New  York  gives  Levi  P.  Morton  75,000  ma- 


386  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

jority  and  Indiana  her  state  ticket  25,000,  and  Illi 
nois  and  those  states  that  have  wavered  fall  again 
into  line,  and  the  next  congress  is  Republican,  there 
will  be  an  assurance  that  we  have  found  the  end  of 
this  disastrous  condition. 

I  think  the  Ohio  Democrats  the  other  day  declared 
that  all  these  disasters  of  which  we  speak  came  upon 
the  country  under  the  McKinley  bill.  Well,  to  be  sure, 
the  McKinley  bill  was  a  law  until  that  twenty-ninth 
day — was  it — of  August,  when  the  Gofman  bill  was 
passed,  but  it  was  a  law  in  restraint.  It  had  been 
arrested.  We  were  listening  from  day  to  day  to  the 
prophecies  that  in  two  weeks,  or  three,  or  four,  it 
would  be  repealed.  It  was  not  a  law  in  the  sense 
that  any  merchant  or  manufacturer  could  act  upon 
it.  It  was  dead  in  a  business  sense,  though  alive  in 
the  statute.  Why,  sir,  it  would  be  just  about  as 
reasonable  to  complain  of  a  man  who  had  been  seized, 
handcuffed  and  locked  up  in  a  cell  for  not  support 
ing  his  family  as  to  complain  of  the  McKinley  bill 
during  this  period  of  suspense.  And  then  we  are 
told  that  under  the  McKinley  bill  the  price  of  wool 
went  down — under  protective  duty — and  since  it  has 
been  made  free  it  is  going  up;  that  sugar  on  the 
free  list  was  higher  than  sugar  with  a  forty  per  cent. 
duty.  All  this  notwithstanding  the  old  doctrine  that 
the  duty  was  always  added  to  the  cost  of  the  domes 
tic  article. 

But,   my   friends,   I   do  not  want  to   detain  you 


IN  PRESENTING  MR.   MCKINLEY  387 

from  that  entertaining  feast  to  which  you  are  in 
vited.  I  am  glad  that  Indiana  to-day  gives  so  royal 
a  reception  to  Governor  McKinley.  He  has  en 
deared  himself  to  all  by  his  record  as  a  gallant  young 
soldier,  battling  for  the  flag.  He  has  honored  him 
self,  his  state  and  the  country  by  his  conspicuous 
service  in  high  legislative  and  executive  places.  No 
man  more  than  he  is  familiar  with  these  questions 
that  now  engage  the  public  thought.  No  man  is 
more  able  than  he  lucidly  to  set  them  before  the  peo 
ple.  I  do  not  need  to  invoke  your  attention  to  what 
he  shall  say.  He  will  command  it.  I  have  now  the 
pleasure  of  presenting  him  to  you. 


THE  GREAT  MASS  MEETING 

Carnegie  Hall,  New  York,  October  81, 1894 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  FELLOW-CITIZENS — This  is  a 
very  great,  but,  I  somewhat  fear,  a  very  impossible 
audience  to  speak  to.  You  seem  to  be  quite 
inclined  to  do  your  own  talking,  and  you  are 
doing  it  very  well.  I  thought  I  had  made 
an  inflexible  resolution  that  I  would  not  speak 
in  this  campaign  outside  the  limits  of  Indiana.  But 
I  have  found,  as  has  often  happened  before  in  my 
experience,  that  inflexible  resolutions  have  to  bend. 
I  did  not  make  this  resolution  because  I  saw 
any  impropriety  in  one,  who  had  received  at 
the  hands  of  his  fellow-citizens  the  highest  civic 
honors,  addressing  his  fellow-citizens  of  any  of  the 
states  upon  public  questions.  I  was  not  quite  will 
ing  to  accept  the  philosophy  of  some  that  the  only 
appropriate  habiliment  for  an  ex-president  was 
mummy-cloth. 

At  the  same  time  I  very  fully  realize  that  I  am 
under  limitations  in  discussing  public  questions.  I 

388. 


THE   GREAT   MASS   MEETING  389 

can  not  say  very  much  about  the  last  administra 
tion,  and  it  is  somewhat  delicate  for  me  to  speak  about 
the  present. 

But,  my  fellow-citizens,  men  are  of  very  little 
consequence  in  the  administration  of  our  public  af 
fairs.  They  do  not  turn  events.  The  important 
matter  is  the  principles  or  policies  that  the  respective 
parties  represent,  and  of  these  I  feel  very 
free  to  speak.  And  if  you  will  give  me  your  atten 
tion  I  will  for  a  little  while  give  you  my  views  as 
to  the  tendency  of  the  policies  of  the  Republican 
party,  which  I  believe  to  be  beneficent  and  helpful 
and  patriotic,  and  of  the  tendencies  of  the  policies  of 
the  Democratic  party,  which  I  believe  to  be  hurtful 
and  destructive. 

In  this  great  country  of  ours,  this  sisterhood  of 
states,  this  union  under  one  flag  and  one  constitu 
tion,  there  is  such  a  community  of  influences,  such 
an  intermingling  of  influences,  that  no  election  can 
in  any  proper  sense  be  said  to  be  local.  It  is  of  con 
sequence,  and  ought  to  be  of  concern  to  all  the  peo 
ple  of  the  United  States  from  the  St.  Johns  to  Puget 
Sound,  whether  the  governor  of  the  state  of  New 
York  shall  be  a  man  of  clean  personal  life,  a  man 
who  illustrates  in  his  own  life  and  history  the  vir 
tues  of  high  American  citizenship,  whether  he  shall 
be  a  man  who  loves  our  free  institutions,  who  ap 
preciates  the  sanctity  of  the  ballot-box  and  the  equal 
ity  of  men  before  the  law,  or  whether  he  shall  be  a 


39O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

man  who  companies  with  those  who  prostitute  the 
ballot-box,  who  companies  with  those  who  degrade 
public  office  and  public  administration.  It  is 
of  consequence  to  the  whole  people  whether 
the  great  state  of  New  York  shall  have  at  the  head 
of  her  executive  department  a  typical,  upright,  pure 
American  citizen,  or  one  who  regards  these  things 
from  a  low  standpoint  and  looks  only  to  party  ad 
vantage  rather  than  to  the  public  weal.  I  have  de 
parted  from  my  resolution  not  to  speak  out  of  my 
own  state,  because  I  could  not  seem  to  be  indifferent 
to  the  contest  which  is  on  in  New  York.  Because, 
being  in  your  city  upon  personal  concerns,  I  would 
not  have  any  one  think  that  I  could  be  indifferent  to 
the  success  of  pne  whom  I  esteem  and  love  as  my 
friend.  I  believe  the  candidate  of  the  Republican 
party,  Levi  P.  Morton,  to  be  altogether  worthy  of 
the  support  of  his  fellow-citizens,  altogether  qualified 
for  the  highest  exercise  of  the  high  duties  of  governor 
of  this  great  state. 

He  is  not  untried  or  unexercised  in  public  af 
fairs;  he  has  represented  this  country  at  one  of  the 
most  important  foreign  courts  with  distinction  and 
honor;  he  has  represented  a  constituency  in  this  city 
in  the  congress  of  the  United  States,  and  as  vice- 
president  he  presided  with  a  grace  and  dignity  and 
power  over  the  senate  of  the  United  States  that  was 
unsurpassed.  I  am  able  to  say  that  few  men  have  ever 
exercised  the  office  of  vice-president  with  more  ac- 


THE   GREAT   MASS   MEETING  '39! 

ceptance,  with  more  honor  and  more  dignity  than 
Levi  P.  Morton. 

Nor  do  I  regard  this  great  contest  which  is  being 
waged  in  the  state  of  New  York  for  pure,  clean, 
decent,  municipal  government  as  a  local  issue. 
The  whole  country  watches  that  great  strug 
gle.  It  has  read  with  amazement  and  disgust 
the  revelations  of  municipal  corruption  and  debauch 
ery  which  have  been  laid  before  the  public ;  it  watches 
with  anxious  solicitude  the  decision  of  the  question 
whether  there  is  power  in  the  body  politic  of  this 
great  city  to  cleanse  itself  from  these  impurities  and 
reassert  decent  government.  It  is  coming  to 
be  recognized  by  all  students  of  public  gov 
ernment  that  the  question  of  municipal  control 
and  management  brings  these  institutions  and  prin 
ciples  to  their  severest  test,  and  we  watch  from  all 
our  cities,  great  and  small,  throughout  the  country, 
this  great  contest  which  is  now  being  waged  in  the 
city  of  New  York.  I  hope,  sincerely  hope,  that  we 
shall  have  another  illustration  to  be  added  to  those 
which  we  have  had  in  the  past,  that  however  patient 
the  people  may  be,  however  neglectful,  however  un- 
watchful  for  a  season,  when  things  have  become  ut 
terly  bad,  men  without  reference  to  party  rally  to 
the  defense  of  their  institutions  and  their  homes  and 
set  things  right  once  more. 

There  are  national  questions  as  well  involved  in 
this  contest  in  New  York.  A  congress  is  to  be 


392  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

chosen,  and  these  constituencies  in  the  great  city  of 
New  York  are  to  exercise  an  important  influence  in 
deciding  the  question  whether  the  control  of  the 
house  of  representatives  at  Washington  shall  be 
wrested  from  the  Democratic  party. 

I  want,  with  your  permission,  to  call  your  atten 
tion  now  to  something  looking  to  the  situation  and 
the  condition  of  the  country,  as  viewed  from  a  na 
tional  standpoint.  Our  government  at  Washington 
has  now  a  more  important  relation  to  the  business 
of  the  country  than  ever  before.  In  the  olden  days, 
when  our  money  was  furnished  by  state  banking  in 
stitutions  and  when  our  interstate  commerce  was 
left  to  regulate  itself  or  without  regulation,  we  did 
not  so  much  appreciate  the  important  touch  which 
the  national  government  has  upon  the  business  af 
fairs  of  the  country.  Now  all  our  money  is  issued 
from  Washington.  Now  the  regulation  of  these  in 
terstate  railroads  has  been  assumed  by  congress, 
and  now  we  realize  as  we  never  have  before  that  the 
question  of  the  tariff  touches  strongly  every  man's 
interest,  whether  he  be  rich  or  poor,  throughout 
the  whole  country.  Men  have  been  debating 
this  tariff  question  from  the  platform  until 
it  seemed  to  be  threadbare.  It  seemed  as  if  it  was 
an  interminable  discussion,  but  there  has  come  into 
the  debate  an  orator  of  the  most  convincing  and 
persuasive  power,  and  that  is  experience.  Ever 
since  the  time  when  the  national  government 


THE   GREAT    MASS    MEETING  '393 

assumed  the  function  of  providing  currency  for  the 
people,  all  through  these  years  since  the  war,  the 
national  government  has  either  been  in  the  control 
of  the  Republican  party  or  that  party  has  been  in 
possession  of  one  branch  of  the  administration,  so 
that  its  policy  could  not  be  contravened.  It  has  been 
the  constructive  party;  carrying  this  country  through 
a  great  civil  war;  it  developed  a  financial  system  that 
stands  unassailed  to  this  day;  called  also  to  provide 
extraordinary  revenue  for  extraordinary  emergencies, 
it  introduced  the  protective  tariff. 

From  that  day  to  this  our  people  have  known  no 
other  system  than  the  protective  system.  The  Demo 
cratic  party  has  now  been  called  to  a  position  of  re 
sponsibility.  For  these  thirty  years  it  has  been  an 
irresponsible  party,  but  in  1892  full  control  was  given 
to  that  party  to  execute  its  design.  Prior  to  that  time, 
having  a  president  or  the  house,  the  senate  blocked  the 
way  against  radical  legislation,  but  in  that  year  it 
was  invested  with  complete  control,  and  suddenly 
these  gentlemen  who  had  been  platform-makers  for 
thirty  years,  were  called  to  the  unaccustomed  duty 
of  making  law. 

Now  it  is — as  we  are  to  be  governed  by  parties, 
and  as  all  these  questions,  tariff  and  finances  in 
their  various  forms,  are  to  be  settled  by  party  elec 
tions  and  party  votes — of  the  highest  consequence 
that  the  views  and  principles  and  purposes  of  the 
respective  parties  should  be  defined  and  understood.t 


394  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

The  trouble  with  the  Democratic  party  now  is  that 
it  is  an  incoherent  party.  Who  could  tell  what 
it  was  going  to  do,  what  its  position  upon 
the  tariff  question  was  ?  If  I  may  speak  of  that  posi 
tion  historically,  it  was  that  the  revenues  of  the  gov 
ernment  should  be  raised  by  customs  duties  and  that 
our  manufacturers  and  our  workingmen  should  at 
least  have  the  benefit  of  such  measure  of  protection  as 
came  from  laying  duties  upon  foreign  imports  ade 
quate  to  the  support  of  the  general  government. 

This  incidental  protection  was  talked  of  by  every 
one  as  a  thing  conceded  and  desirable,  but  when  they 
came  to  frame  their  platform  of  1892  this  doctrine 
was  overthrown,  and  the  party  went  into  that  cam 
paign  upon  the  proposition  that  protection,  all  pro 
tection,  protection  incidental  ©r  of  a  purpose,  were 
unconstitutional.  This  declaration,  in  spite  of  the 
court  decisions,  in  spite  of  the  opinions  of  the  most 
eminent  jurists  in  our  country,  was  adopted  as  the 
principle  upon  which  the  Democratic  party  was 
pledged  to  revise  the  tariff  and  administer  the  gov 
ernment. 

All  business  requires  that  there  shall  be  some  fore 
cast,  some  foreknowledge,  some  estimate  of  what  is 
to  come.  But  when  the  Democratic  party  took  up 
the  work  of  revising  the  tariff,  forecasts  became  im 
possible;  no  busines  man  could  tell  upon  what  basis 
the  tariff  was  to  be  adjusted.  If  a  party  is  to  act 
wisely  for  the  common  good,  there  must  be  some  co- 


THE   GREAT    MASS    MEETING  J395 

herent  principle  adopted  and  accepted  by  the  masses 
of  the  party,  which  we  may  expect  to  find  exempli 
fied  in  the  laws  they  make. 

But  how   have   we   found  it? 

I  think,  perhaps,  of  all  the  insects  the  grasshopper 
is  the  one  most  without  an  objective  point.  No 
one  can  ever  tell,  nor  does  he  know  himself,  when 
he  jumps,  where  he  is  going  to  alight;  it 
may  be  on  the  crown  of  a  sunflower,  or  it  may  be 
in  a  horse  pond.  And  so  this  lack  of  pur 
pose,  this  lack  of  harmony,  of  which  I  have 
spoken,  and  which  I  shall  presently  illustrate,  per 
vaded  the  party,  and  was  largely  instrumental  in 
producing  that  disastrous  depression  under  which 
the  country  has  been  laboring  for  two  years.  I  said 
in  a  casual  conversation  with  some  newspaper  peo 
ple  a  year  and  a  half  ago,  when  I  was  here,  that  I 
feared  Mr.  Cleveland  had  a  wild  team  to  drive. 
It  has  turned  out  so.  It  did  not  require  a  prophet  to 
say  that  it  would  turn  out  so,  for  these  Democratic 
representatives,  chosen  from  these  widely  scattered 
districts  over  the  whole  country,  had  been  pledging 
themselves  to  any  view  of  the  tariff  question  or  of 
the  financial  question  that  seemed  to  them  in  their 
respective  districts  likely  to  bring  them  a  few  votes. 
When  they  came  together  they  were  embarrassed  by 
these  pledges  and  promises,  and  the  confusion  of 
tongues  at  the  building  of  the  tower  of  Babel  was 
scarcely  greater  than  the  confusion  of  voices  that  we 


396  VIEWS    OF    AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

had  at  Washington  when  the  tariff  bill  came  to  be 
considered.  He  who  would  ride  in  a  coach  would  do 
well  to  look  to  the  team  as  well  as  to  the  driver ;  and  it 
is  absolutely  essential  to  the  safety  and  comfort  of  the 
passengers  that  the  driver  and  the  horses  should  have 
the  same  objective  point. 

Now,  my  friends,  with  reference  to  this  bill  that 
was  referred  to.  It  came  into  the  house  with  apolo 
gies  from  the  chairman  of  the  committee  that  had 
drafted  it.  It  was  seized  upon  by  the  house  and 
transformed  before  its  final  passage,  and  if  the 
Democratic  house  of  representatives,  charged  with 
the  administration  of  the  business  concerns  of  this 
great  country,  had  passed  their  bill  and  sent  it  to  the 
senate,  they  would  have  created  a  deficiency  of 
sixty  odd  millions  the  first  year  and  a  permanent  de 
ficiency  of  fifty  millions  in  the  revenues  of  the  govern 
ment.  What  would  these  business  men  think  of  a 
directory,  charged  with  these  great  concerns,  drafting 
a  bill,  the  purpose  of  which  was  to  provide  a  revenue 
for  the  expenses  of  the  government,  that  should  pass  a 
bill  creating  this  enormous  deficiency;  and  a  bill  that, 
if  it  had  become  a  law,  would  have  compelled  the 
secretary  of  the  treasury  to  go  into  the  bond  market 
to  realize  money  to  conduct  the  ordinary  affairs  of 
the  government?  But  this  was  not  all.  When 
the  bill  came  to  the  senate,  what  a  babel  of 
voices  was  there!  The  finance  committee  of  the  sen 
ate  prepared  and  reported  several  hundred  amend- 


THE   GREAT    MASS    MEETING  397 

rnents,  and  thought  they  were  conducting  the  bill 
to  its  passage.  The  Republicans  were  debating  the 
measure  as  reported  by  the  finance  committee  when 
they  waked  up  one  day  to  the  knowledge  of  the  fact 
that  the  bill  was  in  fact  under  consideration  in  a 
Democratic  caucus,  and  that  the  bill  which  they 
were  to  debate  and  upon  which  the  senate  was  to 
vote  was  to  be  a  wholly  different  bill  from  that  re 
ported  by  the  finance  committee.  Four  hundred  ad 
ditional  amendments  were  prepared  in  Democratic 
caucus  to  submit  with  this  bill.  What  a  characteri 
zation  of  this  work  that  is !  A  bill  framed  by  the 
house  to  create  a  deficiency  that  would  have  ruined 
the  government;  a  bill  tinkered  by  the  finance  com 
mittee  in  hundreds  of  points,  and  then  finally  passed 
into  the  hands  of  the  Democratic  caucus  committee 
that  reported  four  hundred  more  amendments  to  it. 

Am  I  not  right  in  saying  that  the  party  is  an  in 
coherent  party  ? 

How  was  this  finally  adjusted?  You  will  remem 
ber  that  when  the  repeal  of  the  Sherman  bill  was 
pending,  Mr.  Gorman,  of  Maryland,  undertook  to 
engineer  a  compromise  measure.  He  claimed  to 
have  the  approval  of  the  secretary  of  the  treasury, 
and  he  thought  he  had  of  the  president.  He  had  a 
disastrous  experience  with  that  attempt  to  engineer  a 
compromise.  When  it  became  apparent  that  neither 
the  house  bill  nor  the  senate  finance  committee  bill 
could  pass  the  senate,  it  became  necessary  that  some 


398  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

other  senator  should  take  up  the  business  of  trying 
to  engineer  a  compromise  tariff  bill.  Mr.  Gorman 
had  had  experience  and  declined.  So  Senator  Jones, 
of  Arkansas,  an  estimable  gentleman,  undertook 
the  work;  and  in  a  speech  in  the  senate  he 
has  told  us  how  he  went  about  it.  He  took  the  bill 
as  it  was  with  the  finance  committee  amendments  and 
went  about  to  each  Democratic  senator  and  asked 
him  what  he  found  objectionable  in  the  bill,  and 
what  changes  must  be  made  to  obtain  his  vote 
and  he  tells  us  that  he  carefully  noted  with  pencil  on 
the  margin  of  the  bill  (those  bills  are  printed  with 
large  margins)  the  objections  of  each  senator.  Now 
what  was  that  process?  It  was  simply  equivalent  to 
going  to  each  senator  and  saying:  "What  will  you 
take  to  vote  for  this  bill  ?"  And  without  reference  to 
any  principle,  without  reference  to  any  thought  that 
was  common  or  of  a  party  nature,  that  bill  was 
adapted  to  the  demands  of  the  different  senators. 
A  senator  who  had  a  collar  and  cuff  interest  in  his 
state  looked  eut  for  that  interest.  The  Alabama  sena 
tors  thwarted  Mr.  Cleveland's  demand  for  free  raw 
material  so  far  as  coal  and  iron  were  concerned.  They 
insisted  upon  a  reduction  of  the  duty  upon  coal  and 
iron,  and  it  was  yielded.  And  so  through  the  senate 
that  process  went  on,  and  this  bill  was  made. 

Now,  my  countrymen,  I  do  not  stand  here  to  say 
anything  unkind  of  individuals.  But  I  do  stand 
here  to  submit  to  the  intelligent  judgment  of  the 


THE   GREAT    MASS    MEETING  399 

citizens  of  New  York,   without  regard  to  politics, 
whether  that  is  the  way  to  make  a  tariff  bill. 

Well,  finally,  forty-three  votes — which  was  the 
number  required — were  obtained  for  the  bill.  One 
Democratic  senator  voted  no,  and,  though  he  de 
nounced  the  bill  so  bitterly,  I  believe  he  is  now  try 
ing  to  point  out  to  you  some  of  its  virtues.  The  bill 
went  to  the  president — no,  first  it  went  back  to  the 
house  in  congress.  The  house  conferrees,  after  a  long 
session — and  you  will  remember  that  from  these  con 
ferences  the  Republicans  were  altogether  excluded;  it 
was  a  meeting,  a  conference,  of  the  senators  and  mem 
bers  of  the  house  who  were  of  Democratic  politics. 
Weeks  and  weeks  they  discussed  these  differences  be 
tween  the  senate  and  the  house,  the  house  conferrees 
declaring  that  they  would  never  agree  to  the  senate 
bill;  that  it  was  violative  of  Democratic  principles, 
whatever  they  may  be,  and  that  they  would  never 
agree  to  it.  They  waked  up  one  morning  to  a 
knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  senate  itself  had  re 
pented  of  passing  the  bill,  and  that  if  the  bill  ever 
got  back  on  the  table  of  the  vice-president,  it  would 
be  killed  in  the  senate.  And  so  the  dreadful  alter 
native  was  presented  to  the  party  of  taking  the  sen 
ate  bill  or  adjourning  without  passing  any  tariff 
bill  at  all. 

And  these  managers  on  the  part  of  the  house, 
who  had  said,  and  who  have  repeated  over  and 
over  again  that  the  bill  was  in  violation  of  all  Dem- 


4OO  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

ocratic  thought  upon  the  tariff — who  have  even 
hinted,  yea,  more  than  hinted;  who  have  charged 
— that  it  was  presided  over  in  large  part  by  the  in 
fluence  of  gigantic  trusts — these  men  finally  accept 
ed  the  bill  rather  than  accept  the  alternative  of  go 
ing  to  the  country  and  confessing  their  incapacity 
to  legislate  upon  the  subject.  It  would  have  been  a 
misfortune,  I  agree,  for  the  Democratic  party  if  it 
had  failed  to  pass  a  tariff  bill,  perhaps  not  greater  than 
that  which  awaits  it  now,  but  still  a  misfortune; 
but  what  a  godsend  it  would  have  been  to  the  country ! 
There  is  not  a  Democrat  who  hears  me  to-night,  and 
I  hope  that  there  are  some  who  do,  who  does  not 
know  that  if  it  had  been  announced  that  that  tariff 
bill  was  dead  and  that  this  congress  would  adjourn 
without  any  legislation,  there  would  have  been  an  in 
stant  revival  of  business  all  over  the  country.  There 
is  not  one  of  these  gentlemen  who  has  any  relations  to 
Wall  street  that  would  not  have  regarded  a  tip  that 
that  thing  was  to  have  happened  as  an  equivalent  to  a 
fortune,  and  would  have  gone  into  the  street  on  the 
long  side  to  the  extent  of  his  credit.  And  it  has 
happened  before,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  that  events  that 
have  been  disastrous  to  the  Democratic  party  have 
been  good  for  the  country. 

Now  let  us  trace  this  bill  a  little  further.  It  went 
to  the  president,  it  went  to  the  president  in  a  constitu 
tional  sense.  I  am  not  sure  that  he  ever  allowed  it  to 
get  near  him  actually.  Some  of  the  newspaper  gentle- 


THE   GREAT    MASS    MEETING  4OI 

men  insisted  that  it  remained  in  the  next  room  until  the 
ten  days  had  expired.  Now,  what  did  the  president 
say  about  it?  He  said,  speaking  from  a  party  stand 
point,  that  it  was  a  bill  characterized  by  party  per 
fidy  and  dishonor.  And  what  did  he  say  about  it 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  structure  of  the  bill  itself? 
He  said  that  it  was  full  of  inconsistencies  and  cru 
dities.  I  do  not  quote  his  exact  terms,  but  the  sub 
stance  of  them.  He  said  that  it  was  unequal.  He 
said  that  he  could  not  see  why  wool  should  be  on 
the  free  list  as  raw  material  and  iron  and  coal  taxed. 
There  never  was  a  stronger  appeal  made  to  any 
man  in  public  office  than  was  made  to  Mr.  Cleve 
land  to  give  his  approval  of  that  bill.  His  office  was 
thronged  by  prominent  Democrats,  telling  him  that 
his  veto  of  the  bill,  or  even  his  refusal  to  sanction 
it,  would  be  disastrous  to  the  party.  But,  in  spite 
of  all  this  pressure,  so  settled  was  his  conviction 
that  the  bill  was  a  miscarriage  that  he  refused  to  ap 
pend  his  name  to  it,  and  wrote  to  Mr.  Catchings  a 
letter  defending  his  course  in  doing  so. 

Now,  my  countrymen,  that  is  the  result  of  thirty 
years  of  Democrat  platform-making  and  campaign 
discussion — a  bill  that  nobody  approved.  I  have  not 
read  a  newspaper,  whether  of  the  straightout  Demo 
cratic  persuasion  or  what  you  call  in  New  York  the 
mugwump  character,  that  has  approved  this  bill.  It 
is  without  any  newspaper  sponsor.  It  is  without  a 


4O2  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

sponsor  among  the  public  men  of  the  Democratic 
party.     It  is  nullius  filius. 

Now,  what  have  we  a  right  to  expect  from  the 
party?  Is  not  this  a  low  statement  of  the  obligation 
the  Democrats  were  under  to  the  country  that  they 
would  frame  a  bill  which  they  would  stand  by  them 
selves?  We  could  not  expect  that  they  would  frame  a 
bill  that  would  please  Republicans,  but  we  had  a  right 
to  expect  that  they  would  frame  a  tariff  bill  to 
which,  when  they  had  completed  it,  they  would 
give  their  assent,  upon  which  they  would  stand  as 
a  settlement  of  this  interminable,  distracting  ques 
tion.  Instead,  they  have  given  us  a  bill  that 
they  have  immediately  set  about  to  mend,  for 
it  was  part  of  the  caucus  resolution  in  the  house 
that,  while  it  accepted  this  senate  bill,  it  would 
immediately  at  that  session  pass  important  bills 
amending  the  bill  and  send  those  bills  to  the  senate, 
and  would  stay  there  until  the  senate  acted  upon 
them.  And  forthwith  several  important  measures — 
very  important  as  regards  revenue — were  passed  by 
the  house  of  representatives  and  sent  to  the  senate 
for  its  action.  It  is  quite  possible,  indeed  probable, 
that  but  for  the  intervention  of  Mr.  Carlisle  the  free 
sugar  bill  that  came  from  the  house  might  have  been 
passed  by  the  senate.  Although  the  house  had  passed 
a  bill  creating  an  enormous  deficiency  we  might  have 
hoped  for  a  better  knowledge  of  this  question  on  the 
part  of  the  senators,  but  they  were  rushing  on  to 


THE   GREAT    MASS    MEETING  403 

pass  this  free  sugar  bill  when  Mr.  Carlisle,  in  alarm, 
sent  to  Senator  Harris,  of  Tennessee,  a  letter  begging 
him  not  to  allow  it  to  be  done,  and  telling  him  if 
it  was  done,  it  would  create  an  enormous  deficiency 
in  the  revenues  of  the  government.  The  Democratic 
house  passed  a  bill  that  would  have  sent  the  govern 
ment  into  the  bond  market  to  pay  its  expenses,  and 
the  Democratic  senate  would  have  repeated  the  error 
but  for  the  intervention  of  Mr.  Carlisle,  staying  their 
hands. 

And  now  what  has  all  this  cost  the  country?  Who 
is  statistician  enough  to  calculate  the  enormous 
losses  that  have  fallen  upon  the  country  as  a  result 
of  this  attempt  of  our  Democratic  friends  to  revise 
the  tariff,  if  I  may  call  that  a  revision  which  was  in 
deed  intended  to  be  a  demolition?  There  has  been 
some  attempt  to  fix  the  responsibility  of  the  evil  times 
which  came  upon  the  country  on  Republican  legisla 
tion.  Let  us  consider  that  question  now  for  a  moment. 
What  was  likely  to  be  the  effect  of  passing  from  the 
McKinley  bill  to  a  law  framed  on  the  lines  of  the  Chi 
cago  platform  ?  I  can  well  understand  how  a  man  may 
be  a  free-trader  or  a  tariff-reformer  without  any  im 
peachment  of  his  mental  or  moral  standing.  But  I  can 
not  understand  how  any  man  of  sound  mind  could'have 
supposed  that  we  could  pass  from  the  McKinley  bill 
to  a  bill  framed  upon  the  lines  of  the  Chicago  plat 
form  without  a  business  convulsion  that  would  shake 
the  country  to  its  center. 


404  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

What  was  the  first  result?  It  was  a  pause.  Mr. 
Cleveland,  himself,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Wilson,  de 
scribes  the  country  as  timidly  awaiting  this  experi 
ment  of  legislating  upon  the  tariff.  Is  it  not  reasonable 
that,  when  this  matter  is  under  consideration,  and 
an  element  of  uncertainty  as  to  price  is  introduced 
into  almost  every  product  of  our  mills,  they  should 
stop  and  pause?  Was  it  to  be  thought  of  that  our 
mills  would  go  on  running  to  the  full,  storing  up 
their  product  in  warehouses,  when  there  was  imme 
diately  before  them  the  prospect  of  a  severe  cut  in 
the  customs  duties  paid  by  competing  articles  that 
come  in  from  foreign  countries?  No,  my  country 
men,  it  was  inevitable;  it  was  a  thing  that  any  sane 
man  must  have  contemplated,  if  he  thought  about  it, 
that  a  period  of  paralysis  and  rest  would  come  into 
all  our  business  ventures.  And  what  did  come?  I 
will  not  attempt  to  picture  the  sad  state  in  which  our 
country  has  been  during  the  last  two  years.  Call  it  a 
panic — it  is  hardly  a  proper  name  for  it,  for  a  panic 
implies  movement,  and  this  was  death.  The  character 
of  the  condition  was  this :  There  was  a  shrinkage,  a  dry 
ing  up.  Every  man  who  had  securities  found  them 
shrinking.  Every  man  who  had  real  estate  found 
it  shrinking  in  value  and  hard  of  sale.  Every  man 
who  worked  for  his  living  found  his  place  imperiled 
or  his  wages  reduced.  Whoever  is  responsible,  what 
ever  policy  is  responsible  for  bringing  this  condition 
upon  the  country,  carries  a  very  heavy  burden  for  the 


THE   GREAT    MASS    MEETING  405 

suffering  that  has  come  into  the  houses  of  our  honest' 
working  people.  Men  who  had  never  in  their  lives  be 
fore  applied  for  charity  came  to  the  relief  committees 
with  a  blush  upon  their  cheeks  and  with  bowed 
heads  as  for  the  first  time  they  found  that  their  own 
arm,  willing  and  strong,  was  unable  to  maintain 
them  and  their  families.  They  said  at  first: 
"The  Sherman  bill,"  and  our  Republican  friends 
who  had  passed  it  promptly  came  forward  to  the 
message  of  Mr.  Cleveland  and  gave  their  votes  for 
the  repeal  of  the  bill.  It  was  a  measure  which,  judged 
from  the  conditions  which  prevailed  when  it  passed,  I 
believe  was  justified.  But  the  expectations  of  those 
who  passed  it  were  disappointed,  and  I  believe  its  re 
peal  was  justified. 

But  it  became  very  apparent  after  the  passage  of 
that  bill  that  the  crushing  weight  that  rested  upon 
the  industries  and  energies  of  this  country  had  not 
been  lifted;  it  was  there  still,  apparently  with  undi- 
minished  weight.  The  money  that  had  been  drawn 
out  of  the  banks  flowed  back,  and  from  that  day  to 
this  the  bank  vaults  in  our  great  commercial  cen 
ters  have  been  full  of  money,  and  there  has  been  no  use 
for  it.  No  new  enterprises,  no  enlargement  of  the 
lines  of  business  in  any  direction,  but  contraction! 
And  from  that  day  to  this  we  have  had  a  condition 
in  which  money  was  abundant  and  cheap,  but 
abundant  and  cheap  as  it  was,  our  people  did  not  find 
the  condition  such  that  they  had  the  courage  to  use 


406  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

it  in  business.  What  is  it  that  our  Demo 
cratic  friends  want  to  accomplish,  if  they  have 
the  purpose,  in  this  tariff  crusade?  They  tell  us 
that  we  are  fenced  in,  hemmed  in  by  our  tariff  pol 
icy,  and  that  if  these  fences,  as  Mr.  Wilson  called 
them,  when  he  was  dined  by  his  London  friends,  were 
taken  down,  we  should  have  great  expansion  in  our 
business;  that  what  we  need  here  is  to  open  the  mar 
kets  of  the  world.  This  is  a  very  resonant  expres 
sion,  and  a  very  fond  one  with  Democrats.  I  feel 
sometimes  that  I  should  like  to  call  upon  some  of 
them  to  specify  what  they  mean  by  it.  I  had  a 
friend  once  in  Indiana  who  had  been  very  popular 
in  a  certain  town,  but  by  reason  of  some  connection 
with  a  railroad  project  there,  had  become  very 
unpopular  and  did  not  visit  the  place  for  several 
years.  Thinking,  however,  the  clamor  against  him 
had  subsided,  he  went  back  to  make  a  speech, 
and  began  by  saying:  "I  am  very  glad  to  meet  my 
friends  again  to-day,"  when  some  one  in  the  audi 
ence  called  out  "Name  them,  please;  name  them." 
I  feel  like  asking  those  gentlemen  to  name  those 
markets ;  they  are  too  general ;  they  say  they  have  set 
about  getting  them,  by  getting  free  raw  material 
for  our  manufactories.  My  countrymen,  of  course, 
what  they  have  in  view  is  to  enable  our  manufact 
urers  to  produce  as  cheaply  as  the  manufacturers 
of  Great  Britain  and  Germany  and  France,  so  that 
they  can  sell  as  cheaply  in  the  markets  of  the  world. 


THE   GREAT    MASS    MEETING  4O/ 

We  had  already  provided  for  our  manufactories  by 
the  rebate  that  was  allowed  in  the  tariff  of  1890. 
But  does  not  every  man  of  sense  see  that  if  this  plan 
is  to  be  carried  out,  there  is  one  thing  more  that 
must  be  done.  Our  manufacturers,  if  they  are  to  com 
pete  in  the  general  markets  of  the  world  in  the 
sale  of  woolens  and  cottons  and  other  like  prod 
ucts,  must  not  only  have  free  raw  material,  but  they 
must  have  men  and  women  who  will  work  at  the 
same  wages  that  are  paid  abroad.  The  wool 
that  is  in  a  coat  is  a  very  small  part  of  its 
cost.  It  is  the  carding,  and  spinning,  and  dyeing, 
and  weaving,  the  wages,  the  labor  that  goes  into  it, 
that  make  its  cost;  and  if  we  are  to  compete  in  the 
markets  of  the  world,  selling  our  goods  at  the  same 
price  with  the  nations  of  Europe,  we  must  get  our 
labor  as  cheap  as  they  get  theirs.  And  yet  our  friends 
are  always  shy  of  admitting  that.  Indeed,  in  the  last 
campaign,  they  seemed  to  promise  that  they  would 
bring  in  a  time  when  every  man  would  sell  what  he 
had  to  sell,  high,  and  buy  what  he  wanted  to  buy,  low, 
forgetting  that  there  was  a  buyer  and  seller  in  every 
transaction  and  that  it  could  not  be  high  and  low. 

No,  it  had  just  as  well  be  admitted  that  this  chasing 
after  the  markets  of  the  world  involves  scaling  down 
the  wages  of  our  working  people;  for  how 
can  one  compete,  who  pays  for  his  labor  two  dollars 
a  day,  with  another  making  the  same  product  who 
pays  fifty  cents  a  day?  He  must  go  out  of  the  mar- 


408  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

ket  or  cut  down  wages,  so  that  the  workingmen  of 
our  country,  and  all  men  must  suffer;  for  this  is  not 
a  question  for  workingmen  only;  it  is  a  question  that 
goes  to  every  right- feeling  man  and  right-thinking 
man,  however  independent  his  circumstances  in  life 
may  be.  I  can  not  help  but  feel  that,  in  a  country 
like  ours,  where  our  social  security  and  the  good  order 
of  our  communities  depend  upon  a  well-conditioned 
and  well-disposed  laboring  people,  and  where  the  de 
fenses  of  our  flag  and  our  institutions  depend  upon 
the  strong  arm  and  patriotic  hearts  of  our  workingmen 
— I  can  not  help  but  feel  that  it  would  be  a  disaster  to 
bring  in  a  condition  of  wages  in  this  country  so  low 
that  hope  would  go  out  of  the  heart  of  the  man  who 
toils  in  the  mill.  Unless  there  is  hope  in  the  heart,  some 
promise  of  better  things,  some  margin  of  comfort, 
some  ladder  for  the  feet  of  his  children  to  climb  to 
heights  that  he  had  not  attained;  unless  these 
things  are  in  the  heart,  you  may  expect  anarchy  to 
increase  and  social  disorders. 

I  have  stated  before  and  have  been  called  to  ac 
count  for  it  here,  I  think,  in  New  York,  by  one  in 
very  high  position,  that  I  thought  things  might  be 
too  cheap.  Whenever  anything  that  I  wear  on 
my  back  or  use  in  my  house  is  produced  at  so 
low  a  cost  that  the  man  or  woman  who  makes 
it  does  not  get  a  decent,  comfortable  living  out 
of  the  making  of  it,  I  ought  to  be  ashamed  to 
wear  or  to  have  it.  I  suppose  there  are  not  many 


THE  GREAT   MASS   MEETING  409 

agriculturists  here,  but  the  agriculturist  knows  that 
fences  are  to  keep  things  out  as  well  as  to  keep  things 
in.  And  these  fences  of  ours  have  inclosed  the  brightest 
landscapes,  the  most  fertile  fields,  the  richest  meadows 
and  pastures,  the  sunniest  hillsides  and  the  stateliest 
woods  that  are  to  be  found  in  the  world. 

The  story  of  our  progress  during  these  thirty 
years  of  protection  was  marvelous,  unequaled,  with 
the  increase  in  population  having  been  more  than 
equaled  by  the  increase  in  wealth;  and  a  commit 
tee  of  the  senate,  constituted  of  Democrats  and  Re 
publicans,  to  inquire  into  the  effect  of  the  tariff  law 
of  1890,  reported  that  under  it  wages  had  appre 
ciated  and  the  cost  of  living  to  our  workingmen  had 
diminished. 

Out  on  the  range  beyond  these  fences  of  ours  I 
am  sure  the  grass  is  not  so  good.  The  range 
is  already  overcrowded,  and  the  angry  and  horned 
cattle  that  browse  upon  it  are  coming  up  to  our 
fences  and  putting  their  heads  through  the  cracks 
to  get  some  of  our  grass.  I  think  it  is  quite  better 
that,  instead  of  tearing  the  fences  down  and 
making  everything  common,  we  should  have  some 
convenient  gates  that  we  can  let  in  what  we 
want  to  and  get  out  what  we  want  to.  We  are 
not  under  a  few  disadvantages  in  this  strife  with 
the  markets  of  the  world.  We  are  not  a  coloniz 
ing  nation.  England,  France,  Germany,  Italy  are  en 
gaged  now  in  a  mad  struggle  to  take  up  every  part  of  the 


4IO  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

earth  that  is  not  already  in  the  possession  of  one  of  the 
great  powers.  They  have  carved  up  Africa  and  Asia, 
and  are  seizing  the  islands  of  the  sea  and  establishing 
their  armed  hosts  and  their  governors  and  their  steam 
ship  communications  with  such  places,  and  it  gives 
them  an  advantage.  We  are  not  on  equal  terms.  We 
can  not  enter  into  this  ruthless  struggle  to  seize  the 
lands  of  other  people.  Thank  God,  American  diplo 
macy  has  always  been  a  sentimental  diplomacy,  and 
every  one  of  the  young  South  American  republics  has 
found  a  cheer  and  a  helping  hand  from  this  great 
republic.  We  do  not  push  our  commerce  upon  unwill 
ing  people  at  the  bayonet's  point.  We  do  not  fire  our 
cotton  and  our  wool  and  our  opium  from  the  mouths  of 
great  guns.  We  are  at  a  disadvantage. 

We  are  not  a  colonizing  nation.  Indeed,  it  has 
been  thought  improper  even  to  take  up  an  island  or 
two,  and,  not  only  a  commercial  island  that  was  im 
portant,  but  one  that  occupied  a  military  and  naval 
position  of  great  strategic  interest  and  necessity  to 
the  United  States. 

Then  again  in  this  contest  for  the  commerce  of 
the  world  we  are  without  steamship  lines.  Our 
communications,  our  naval  marine,  has  not  been  re 
established  yet;  and  until  we  have  great  steamship 
lines  plying  regularly  and  swiftly  to  these  countries 
with  which  we  would  trade,  we  can  not  compete 
with  the  nations  that  have.  So  long  as  it  remains 
true  that  a  man  or  merchandise  must  go  from  Rio 


THE   GREAT    MASS    MEETING  4!  I 

to  Liverpool  in  order  to  get  to  New  York,  we  are 
not  in  a  good  position  for  competition.  And 
then  again  these  fields  have  been  largely  occu 
pied.  We  should  come  into  many  of  them  as  a  new 
trading  nation  in  many  branches  of  commerce. 
Already  English  and  German  and  French  and  other 
agents  have  sought  out  the  peculiar  demands  of  these 
countries  and  have  adapted  their  products  to  sale 
there.  Already  they  have  established  banking  in 
stitutions,  so  that  exchange  is  easy  between  these 
foreign  ports  and  London.  That  has  not  yet  been 
done  by  us,  though  I  hope  it  may  be,  and  New  York 
may  stand  in  such  relation  to  many  of  these  great 
South  American  countries.  So  that  we  are  in  too 
much  of  a  hurry,  I  think,  to  take  down  our  fences. 
But  that  is  not  all.  There  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  this  excuse  for  these  tariff  reforms  is  not  wholly 
sincere,  for,  my  countrymen,  we  had  already,  under 
section  3  of  the  tariff  law  of  1890,  known  as  the 
reciprocity  section — we  had  already  secured  the  most 
advantageous  commercial  arrangements  with  many  of 
the  great  South  and  Central  American  countries,  with 
Cuba  and  Porto  Rico,  and  even  with  Germany  itself. 
We  had  secured  terms  that  gave  us  the  markets  of  Cuba 
for  American  breadstuffs  and  provisions,  and  for  an 
important  line  of  manufactured  products  upon  terms 
no  other  nation  in  the  world  could  enjoy,  and  that 
gave  us  practically  the  control  of  the  trade. 
We  had  even  found  Germany's  interest,  she 


412  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

being  a  large  exporter  of  beet  sugar  to  the 
United  States,  was  such  as  to  induce  that  great  em 
pire  to  make  a  favorable  arrangement  with  us  as  to 
the  introduction  of  American  products  into  Germany 
in  exchange  for  free  sugar  in  the  United  States. 
This  had  cost  us  nothing.  We  had  given  to  American 
households  free  sugar.  A  notable  item  of  diminished 
cost  in  the  household  of  the  poor  is  free  sugar;  and  we 
have  not  reduced  the  wages  of  a  single  American 
workman.  We  had  got  it  without  cost,  save  as  the 
public  treasury  surrendered  the  revenues.  How  was 
this  regarded  abroad?  The  Democratic  platform  of 
1893  called  it  a  sham  reciprocity. 

How  was  it  looked  upon  in  England?  The  Lon 
don  chamber  of  commerce  memorialized  the  govern 
ment  to  appoint  a  commission  to  devise  some  method 
to  counteract  what  they  called  this  American  com 
mercial  crusade.  The  president  of  the  associated 
chambers  of  commerce  of  Great  Britain  declared  that 
British  trade  with  those  countries  had  fallen  off  in 
that  year  some  $24,000,000,  and  that  this  was  strongly 
due  to  the  American  reciprocity  plan.  And  recently 
I  noticed  in  an  English  newspaper  an  article  congratu 
lating  itself  upon  the  fact  that  under  the  new 
tariff  bill  this  arrangement  had  all  been  overthrown. 
I  believe  that  through  these  arrangements  and 
by  them,  through  our  nearness  to  the  Cen 
tral  and  South  American  countries,  and  to 
the  islands  in  the  West  Indies,  through  that 


THE   GREAT    MASS    MEETING  413 

bond  of  sympathy  that  exists  between  sister  repub 
lics,  we  had  a  large  field  for  foreign  trade  that,  by 
the  proper  encouragement  for  the  establishment  of 
steamship  lines,  would  have  greatly  stimulated  Ameri 
can  productions,  both  in  agriculture  and  in  the  me 
chanic  arts.  And  this  was  all  thrown  away,  every  one 
of  these  arrangements  stricken  down,  and  stricken 
down  by  gentlemen  who  excuse  their  whole  project 
only  upon  the  theory  that  they  want  the  markets  of 
'the  world.  I  think  that  we  may  well  call  the  Demo 
cratic  party  to  account  for  its  failure  to  deal  with 
these  great  public  questions  in  an  intelligent  and 
patriotic  manner.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  Dem 
ocratic  business  man  who,  if  he  were  a  stockholder 
in  a  concern  whose  directory  had  dealt  like  this  with 
great  affairs,  would  not  at  the  next  stockholders* 
meeting  elect  a  new  board.  And  yet  after  all  this 
dreadful  time  we  have  had,  after  drawing  the  coun 
try  through  this  slough  of  despond,  we  are  still  told 
that  the  end  has  not  yet  been  reached;  that  the  work 
is  to  go  on.  Mr.  Cleveland  tells  us  that,  Mr.  Wilson 
tells  us,  and  the  Democratic  senators  tell  us  that.  It 
is  very  distressing  information.  It  is  always  a  com 
fort  when  we  can  say  that  the  worst  has  happened,  and 
that  there  is  nothing  worse  in  store  for  us.  If  we  could 
only  know  that  we  were  at  the  bottom  of  the  well,  and 
that  no  other  depths  yawned  for  us,  we  would  anoint 
our  bruises  and  look  up  and  see  if  out  of  the  darkness 
some  star  did  not  show  itself,  and  then  try  to  get  out 


414  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

of  the  hole.  But  these  gentlemen  all  tell  us  that  this 
war  is  to  go  on;  but  they  are  not  quite  sure  to  have 
their  own  way  about  it.  This  congress  has  three 
months  more  of  life  and  only  three.  A  great  deal  of 
that  time  will  be  required  to  frame  the  necessary  appro 
priation  bills.  And  if,  as  I  believe,  the  congress  chosen 
this  fall  is  Republican,  all  the  balance  of  the  time  of 
the  session,  I  am  sure,  will  be  taken  up  by  our  Repub 
lican  senators  explaining  to  their  Democratic  col 
leagues  what  the  election  this  fall  meant.  And  we 
shall  have  an  end  of  this  destructive  war  on  our  Ameri 
can  industries. 

I  have  wondered  why  our  Democratic  leaders 
should  hate  an  American  smokestack.  And  yet 
they  have  in  these  campaigns  described  the  American 
manufacturer  as  a  thieving  robber-baron.  They  have 
had  no  terms  but  those  of  denunciation  for  him.  I 
never  could  see  why  this  could  be  so — why  it  was 
an  offense  against  society  or  the  country  for  a  man 
to  build  a  mill  and  give  employment  to  men  and 
women  at  decent  wages  inside  of  it.  But 
these  appeals  have  been  made,  and  the  minds  of 
the  workingmen  were  inflamed  against  their  employ 
ers.  They  were  made  to  believe  that  the  man  who 
paid  them  wages  was  their  enemy,  and  they  must 
assume  toward  him  the  attitude  of  hostility.  They 
were  told  that  the  benefits  of  protection  were  not 
equally  distributed,  and  that  the  manufacturer  got 
too  much.  Other  men  were  told  if  they  did  not 


THE   GREAT    MASS    MEETING  415 

work  in  protected  industries  they  got  no  benefit 
from  protection;  as  if  there  was  not  a  gradation  be 
tween  wages,  the  common  wages  of  the  common  la 
borer  on  the  street  up  to  the  skilled  man  in  the 
shop.  If  the  skilled  man  or  engineer  gets  $20  a 
month,  will  the  laborer  on  the  street  get  $i  a  day? 
There  is  a  relation  of  these  things.  This  question 
touches  all  labor.  And  it  is  sophistry  to  attempt  to 
separate  labor  into  two  classes,  one  in  the  protected 
industries  and  one  out  of  it.  All  are  alike  interested, 
and  yet  their  minds  have  been  poisoned,  and  they  were 
told  that  we  lived  under  a  system  that  made  the  rich 
richer  and  the  poor  poorer;  and  by  way  of  curing  it 
they  brought  in  a  time  when  we  were  all  poor. 

My  countrymen,  I  wish  we  could  banish  epithets 
from  our  public  discussion.  I  wish  we  could  get 
our  people  all  to  understand  that  when  we  have 
prosperous  times  they  are  good  for  everybody; 
not  equally,  one  may  gain  more  than  another; 
but  when  we  have  good  times  everybody  shares 
them  in  his  measure.  And  when  we  have  evil 
times,  every  man  shares  the  sorrow  of  them.  We  are 
in  our  social  and  civil  life  so  knit  together  that  it  is 
an  impossible  condition  of  things  when  the  times  can 
be  prosperous  for  some  of  our  people  and  disastrous 
for  others.  Let  us  take  that  lesson  to  our  hearts.  Let 
us  put  bitterness  out  of  them.  Let  us  stop  these  envy- 
ings  and  these  jealousies,  and  look  at  these  questions 
from  the  standpoint  of  a  common  love  for  a  common 


4l6  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

i 

country,  and  a  brotherhood  among  the  citizens  of  that 
land.  The  workingman  is  told  that  the  um 
brella  that  sheltered  him  and  his  employer  is  not 
held  quite  level.  He  was  getting  too  much  of  the 
drip.  He  was  made  angry  and  he  said:  "I  will 
smash  the  umbrella  and  we  will  both  be  out  in  the 
wet."  But  the  poor  fellow  forgot  that  the  employer 
had  a  rubber  coat,  while  he  was  in  his  shirt  sleeves.  I 
think  we  are  wiser  now  than  we  were.  Adversity  is  a 
great  teacher.  Experience  exacts  a  high  tuition,  but 
we  carry  its  lessons  a  long  time.  The  Democratic 
party  was  uninstructed  and  inexperienced.  All  of  the 
cost  we  have  suffered  has  been  brought  about  in  an 
effort  to  educate  it  to  the  management  of  the 
government.  It  has  been  a  very  costly  experiment, 
and  I  submit  to  you  whether  we  had  not  better  close  the 
school. 

I  think  that  the  great  masses  of  every  political  creed 
and  of  every  religion  are  patriotic  lovers  of  their 
country,  and  that  according  to  their  lights  they  are 
willing  to  serve  it.  It  is  a  country  worthy  the  love 
of  us  all.  It  has  a  noble  history,  a  history  illus 
trated  by  great  deeds,  a  history  sanctified  by 
great  sacrifices,  a  history  that  has  set  in  the  galaxy 
of  the  world's  great  statesmen  some  enduring  names, 
a  history  that  has  set  in  the  rolls  of  the  military 
chieftains  names  that  are  at  the  top,  a  country  that 
has  fought  a  great  war  to  a  successful  issue  without 
a  standing  army.  A  country  that  has  preserved  a 


THE  GREAT    MASS   MEETING  417 

vast  domain,  domestic  peace,  and  individual  security; 
a  country  that  has  riches  untold,  a  country  whose  flag 
the  world  recognizes  as  the  emblem  of  a  great  power 
resting  upon  the  affection  of  its  own  people. 
It  is  worthy  of  our  love.  It  should  be  be 
fore  everything  else  but  God.  Wife,  children, 
mother,  lover — all  these  men  have  put  aside  for  it, 
and  they  have  poured  out  their  blood  in  its  defense, 
glad  that  they  might  thus  contribute  to  the  security 
of  their  country  and  the  honor  of  the  flag. 
Is  it  too  much,  then,  to  ask  you,  my  coun 
trymen,  here  to-night,  in  this  great  national 
crisis,  in  this  time  when  our  American  workmen 
are  suffering  and  out  of  employment,  in  this  time 
when  wages  are  going  down  and  hope  is  going  out, 
to  stand  by  that  good  American  doctrine  that  would 
maintain  these  wages  at  a  living  standard  and  de 
fend  our  homes  against  an  enemy  more  fatal  to  our 
peace  and  prosperity  than  any  armed  legions  that 
could  be  marshaled  against  them — the  invasion  of  pau 
perism  ? 

I  read  this  morning  that  the  operatives  of  Fall 
River,  after  a  loss  of  a  million  or  more  in  wages 
and  the  exhaustion  of  their  union  treasury  funds, 
have  returned  to  work  at  the  scale  proposed.  I  went 
only  a  week  or  two  ago  through  a  busy  section  of 
my  own  state,  where  industries,  stimulated  by  the 
discovery  of  natural  gas  as  a  fuel,  have  sprung  up  in 
the  last  six  years  with  marvelous  rapidity.  I  walked 


41 8  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

through  lines  of  workmen  from  some  of  those  shops 
bearing  on  their  hats  this  legend:  "Wages  221-2 
per  cent,  off."  So  it  is — down,  down,  down!  My 
countrymen,  let  us  stop  this  war  on  American  in 
dustry  and  American  homes.  Let  the  greatest  of  the 
manufacturing  states,  by  her  people  in  this  election, 
speak  in  a  voice  that  shall  be  heard  from  ocean  to  ocean 
in  condemnation  of  those  who  have  brought  these 
disasters  upon  the  country.  I  believe  that  will  be  the 
verdict  of  the  country. 


A  TALK  ABOUT  THE  LITTLE  ONES 

In  "The  Interior"— Chicago,  August,  1896 

Why  should  I  be  asked  to  write  about  education, 
who  am  not  an  educator?  In  truth,  all  I  under 
stand  as  to  this  particular  is  only  this:  that  the 
greatest  and  most  important  difficulty  of  human 
science  is  the  nurture  and  education  of  children. 
There  is  a  sense  in  which  we  are  all  educators — un 
licensed  teachers.  We  have  no  roll  of  our  pupils — 
they  are  a  truant  lot,  and  take  their  lessons  in  a  cas 
ual  way.  We  are  seldom  conscious  that  we  are  im 
parting  instruction,  and  the  pupils  do  not  know  that 
they  are  taking  lessons.  Perhaps  the  sum  of  what 
is  learned  in  this  way  is  greater  and  more  potent 
in  the  life  of  the  pupils  than  what  is  learned  in  the 
schools.  The  former  is  absorbed;  the  latter  may  be 
only  a  skin  polish.  If  this  educational  number  of 
The  Interior  is  dedicated  to  the  schools,  I  can  con 
tribute  only  reminiscences;  but  if  it  is  educational  in 
the  broader  sense,  I  might  indulge  in  some  sugges 
tions;  and,  for  the  increased  room  it  will  give  me,  I 
shall  assume  that  it  is  so. 

419 


42O  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

When  the  boy  is  six,  or  it  may  be  seven  years  of 
age,  the  parents  say:  "It  is  time  we  were  putting 
him  in  school."  My  dear,  deluded  friends,  he  has 
been  "in  school"  since  he  was  eighteen  months  old; 
and  for  the  most  of  that  time  he  was  a  scholar  with 
out  opinions  and  without  doubts;  he  controverted 
nothing,  save  only  when  his  physical  desires  were 
crossed,  and  was  more  alert,  observing,  curious  and 
retentive  than  he  will  be  again.  Nothing  has  be 
come  commonplace  to  him.  He  has  acquired  his  let 
ters — can  read  a  little;  but  has  any  grown  person 
ever  had  a  conversation  with  him?  He  has  been 
lectured,  teased,  chaffed  and  petted;  has  had  some 
moral  and  religious  precepts  imparted  to  him.  His 
antics  of  body  and  mind  have  been  laughed  at;  but 
has  any  man  or  woman  ever  had  a  conversation  with 
him?  He  has  had,  perhaps,  governesses  and  nurses, 
but  never  in  most  cases  an  adult  companion.  He 
may  be  pert  in  some  things  and  ways,  but  he  has  a 
store  of  things  that  he  hides,  and  will  only  uncover 
to  a  chum.  Every  boy  and  girl  needs  an  adult  chum 
as  an  educational  force.  Consider  the  case  of  a  boy. 
He  has  been  brought  into  a  vast  workshop,  where 
the  most  subtle  forces  and  the  most  intricate  mechan 
isms  are  humming  and  whirling;  into  a  vast  picture 
gallery  where  thousands  of  canvases,  great  and 
small,  are  hung;  into  a  great  auditorium  where  on 
many  stages  clowns  and  tragedians  are  acting  and 
reciting.  He  needs  help;  for  a  habit  that  will  in- 


A  TALK   ABOUT   THE   LITTLE  ONES  421 

fluence,  yes  control,  his  intellectual  life  is  now  being 
acquired.  Is  he  to  have  a  wandering  or  a  fixed  eye; 
a  habit  of  attention  or  of  mental  dissipation?  Per 
ception  is  near  the  base  of  all  intellectual  growth. 
That  men  can  see,  and  see  not,  was  one  of  the  Bible 
paradoxes  that  my  infant  mind  hearing  heard  not. 
But  the  explanatory  words  "perceive"  and  "under 
stand"  make  the  saying  not  only  plain  but  profound. 
Seeing  is  a  mental,  not  an  optical  fact.  The  great 
men  in  every  department  of  labor  are  the  men  who 
seeing,  see,  and  hearing,  hear.  A  "scatter-brain" 
may  run  on  to  a  bee  tree,  but  he  can  not  be  depended 
upon  to  supply  the  table  with  honey.  We  note  many 
mental  "characteristics"  in  men.  We  say  this  one 
has  a  good  memory,  and  this  one  great  reasoning 
powers;  but  from  a  mental  standpoint  there  are  in 
truth  only  two  great  classes  among  men — the  men 
who  give  attention  and  the  men  who  do  not. 

The  first  command  on  the  drill  ground  is  "atten 
tion;"  and  it  ought  to  be  the  first  in  the  nursery,  the 
home  and  the  school.  The  best  way  to  cultivate  the 
memory  is  to  get  a  focus  and  then  to  give  a  proper 
exposure.  The  most  of  the  things  we  have  forgot 
ten  are  things  we  never  knew.  As  soon  as  a  child 
is  old  enough  to  notice  anything,  he  may  be  taught 
to  make  his  notice  particular  and  not  casual. 

"The  clay  is  moist  and  soft;  now,  now  make  haste, 
And  form  the  vessel,  for  the  wheel  turns  fast." 


422  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

Why  did  the  good  God  make  things  to  differ — 
the  leaf  and  bark  and  seed,  only  enough  alike  to  in 
dicate  the  family,  and  yet  no  counterparts  in  any 
family — if  not  for  our  notice?  You  can  make  noth 
ing  of  a  boy  to  whom  a  tree  is  a  tree,  until  you 
have  taught  him  that  it  is  not  so.  The  boy  who  has 
learned  to  distinguish  a  beech  from  a  box  alder  will 
make  other  distinctions  more  easily.  I  am  persuaded 
that  we  make  too  little  of  childhood  in  our  educa 
tional  system.  The  schoolroom  gets  him  soon 
enough,  perhaps  too  soon,  and  with  too  hard  a  grip; 
but  the  guide  of  the  two,  three,  four  and  five-year 
old  has  been  too  much  off  duty.  Do  not  mistake  me. 
The  pupils  are  not  to  be  called  in  from  play;  there 
is  to  be  no  hour;  they  are  not  to  be  crammed,  nor 
their  feet  set  in  paths,  nor  to  have  any  suspicion  that 
they  are  taking  a  lesson.  The  object  is  not  knowl 
edge,  but  the  training  of  a  faculty  that  is  then  very 
alert — the  faculty  of  perception.  Do  not  plan  to 
bring  objects  to  their  notice  so  much  as  to  lead  them 
to  notice  more  accurately  things  that  have  already 
attracted  their  notice.  Do  not  try  to  be  exhaustive, 
but  only  to  add  something.  Senator  Stanford  told 
me  that  in  the  training  of  his  young  horses  he  al 
ways  stopped  the  exercise  inside  the  fatigue  limit. 

The  faculty  of  description,  of  making  others  see 
and  enjoy  what  you  have  seen  and  enjoyed,  is  the 
handmaid  of  perception,  and  the  two  should  walk 
together.  Do  not  do  all  the  talking;  let  the  child 


A   TALK   ABOUT   THE   LITTLE   ONES  423 

have  a  chance.  Montaigne  says :  "  Tis  the  custom 
of  schoolmasters  to  be  eternally  thundering  in  their 
pupils'  ears,  as  though  they  were  pouring  into  a  fun 
nel.  *  *  *  I  would  not  have  him  alone  to  in 
vent  and  speak,  but  that  he  should  also  hear  his  pu 
pils  in  turn."  The  tank  may  be  full,  but  if  there  is 
no  tap  how  shall  we  draw  from  it?  Composition 
will  be  made  easy,  and  the  accuracy  of  the  child's 
observation  will  be  tested  by  drawing  him  on  to  de 
scribe  what  he  has  seen.  To  make  giving  out  easy 
is  quite  as  much  in  the  way  of  education  as  a  fa 
cility  of  storing  up.  The  filling  of  the  corn  crib  im 
plies  the  emptying  of  it.  It  may  be  well  enough  to 
have  children  commit  to  memory  worthy  verse  and 
prose,  but  a  description  is  better  mental  exercise  than 
a  recital.  Remember  the  little  fellow  is  often  very 
modest  and  very  easily  squelched.  A  laugh,  and — 
as  a  little  friend  of  mine  gave  the  scripture  at  fam 
ily  prayers — "there  was  a  great  clam."  The  old 
saying,  "Children  should  be  seen  and  not  heard"  has 
no  truth  in  it,  as  applied  to  family  life.  Every 
child  should  be  heard,  not  intrusively,  but  often, 
and  with  attention  and  sympathy.  You  are  at  great 
pains  about  his  table  manners — what  he  shall  eat, 
and  that  he  shall  not  eat  it  with  his  knife;  but  we 
have  authority  for  saying  that  what  comes  out  of 
the  mouth  is  more  important. 

I  would  not  take  any  of  the  frolic  out  of  a  child's 
life — no  lifting  of  the  finger,  no  pedantic  gravity, 


424  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

no  forcing  or  cramming — but  I  would  make  play  and 
story,  the  walk,  the  evening  hour  upon  the  knee,  all 
contribute  little  by  little  to  the  development  of  the 
faculties  of  observation  and  description.  It  will 
make  the  inevitable  composition  on  the  cow  much 
easier  and  more  instructive  if  the  writer  has  ob 
served  that  all  cows  do  not  have  horns,  and  that  the 
long  brush  tail  is  not  worn  so  much  for  the  milk 
maid  as  for  the  flies.  Said  a  little  girl,  who  had 
with  her  class  just  written  about  the  cow,  "Mr.  Har 
rison,  there  was  one  thing  every  one  of  us  forgot." 
"What  was  that?"  I  asked.  "Why,  that  the  cow 
has  a  compound  stomach."  The  truth  was,  I  sus 
pect,  that  they  had  never  known  it,  had  never  ob 
served  the  vigorous  chewing  of  the  cow  as  she  stood 
in  the  barnyard.  But  these  were  city  girls,  and  the 
milkman,  and  not  the  cow,  should  have  been  as 
signed  'for  their  theme. 

The  person,  boy  or  girl,  man  or  woman,  who  has 
acquired  the  habit  of  attention,  of  close  observation, 
and  the  faculty  of  describing  what  has  been  observed, 
is  an  educated  person  in  a  truer  sense  than  many  an 
other  who  is  more  learned.  The  former  is  in  the 
way  of  becoming  an  intellectual  pioneer — the  latter 
may  be  only  a  bin  of  mixed  wheat.  It  must  be  that 
in  looking  at  things  for  six  years  a  habit  of  looking 
will  be  acquired,  and  it  is  immensely  important  that 
it  should  be  a  right  habit.  Bacon  says:  "Certainly 
custom  is  most  perfect  when  it  beginneth  in  young 


A   TALK   ABOUT   THE   LITTLE   ONES  425 

years,  this  we  call  education  which  is  in  effect  but 
an  early  custom." 

I  hope  these  suggestions,  misapplied,  will  not  get 
any  of  my  young  friends  into  trouble.  I  do  not  re 
commend  the  rod  as  a  means  of  fixing  the  attention; 
though  in  a  way  it  has  that  effect.  In  the  case  of  the 
child  in  the  home,  the  lessons  should  be  chiefly  given 
as  the  stimulant  was  given  to  the  teetotaler,  in  Mr. 
Lincoln's  story — "unbeknownst  to  him." 


AT  THE  REPUBLICAN  RATIFICATION 
MEETING 

Carnegie  Hall,  New  York,  August  27, 1896 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN — I  am  on  the  Republican 
retired  list,  not  by  reason  of  any  age  limit  nor  by 
the  decree  of  any  convention,  but  voluntarily  that  the 
•younger  men  might  have  a  chance,  and  that  I  might 
have  rest.  But  I  am  neither  a  soured  nor  a  bed 
ridden  citizen.  My  interest  in  my  country  did  not 
cease  when  my  last  salary  check  was  cashed.  I 
hoped  to  add  to  relief  from  official  duties  retire 
ment  from  the  arena  of  political  debate.  But  the 
gentlemen  having  in  charge  this  campaign  seemed 
to  think  that  I  might  in  some  way  advance  the  in 
terest  of  those  principles  which  are  not  less  dear  to 
me  than  they  are  to  you,  by  making  in  this  great 
city  a  public  address.  I  thought  they  greatly  mag 
nified  the  importance  of  anything  that  I  could  say, 
but  I  could  not  quite  content  myself  to  subordinate 
what  others  thought  to  be  a  public  duty  to  my  pri 
vate  convenience.  I  am  here  to-night  not  to  make 

426 


THE   REPUBLICAN    RATIFICATION    MEETING      427 

a  "keynote"  speech,  but  only  to  express  my  personal 
views,  for  which  no  one  else  will  be  in  any  measure 
responsible,  for  this  speech  has  not  been  submitted 
to  the  judgment  of  any  one  until  now. 

I  shall  speak,  my  fellow-citizens,  as  a  Republican, 
but  with  perfect  respect  for  those  who  hold  differ 
ing  opinions.  Indeed,  I  have  never  had  so  much  re 
spect  for  Democrats  as  I  have  now;  or,  perhaps,  I 
should  say  I  have  never  had  so  much  respect  for  so 
many  Democrats  as  I  have  now.  That  party  has 
once  more  exhibited  its  capacity  to  be  ruptured,  and 
a  party  that  can  not  be  split  is  a  public  menace. 
When  the  leaders  of  a  party  assembled  in  conven 
tion  depart  from  its  traditional  principles  and  advo 
cate  doctrines  that  threaten  the  integrity  of  the  gov 
ernment,  the  social  order  of  our  communities  and 
the  security  and  soundness  of  our  finances,  the  party 
ought  to  split  and  it  dignifies  itself  when  it  does 
split.  A  bolt  is  now  and  then  a  most  reassuring 
incident,  and  was  never  more  reassuring  and  never 
had  a  better  cause  than  now. 

But  these  Democratic  friends,  who  are  disposed 
more  or  less  directly  to  help  the  cause  of  sound 
finance  in  this  campaign,  ought  not  to  expect  that 
the  Republican  party  will  reorganize  itself  because 
the  Democratic  party  has  disorganized  itself.  The 
Republican  party,  if  sound  money  triumphs,  as  I  be 
lieve  it  will,  must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  consti 
tute  the  body  of  the  successful  army.  We  ought  not, 


428  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

therefore,  to  be  asked  to  do  anything  that  will  af 
fect  the  solidity,  the  loyalty,  the  discipline  or  the  en 
thusiasm  of  the  Republican  party. 

The  Republican  party  fronts  the  destructionists  and 
trumpets  its  defiance  to  the  enemies  of  sound  money. 
It  will  fight,  however,  without  covering  any  of  the 
glorious  mottoes  and  inscriptions  that  are  upon  its 
banner.  When  the  house  is  on  fire — and  many  of 
our  Democratic  friends  believe  that  to  be  the  pres 
ent  domestic  situation — the  tenant  on  the  top  floor 
ought  not  to  ask  the  tenant  in  the  basement  to  bury 
any  of  his  opinions  before  he  joins  the  fire  brigade. 
And  our  Democratic  friends  who  realize  as  we  realize 
the  gravity,  the  far-reaching  consequences  of  this 
campaign,  ought  not  to  ask  the  Republican  party  to 
reorganize  itself;  or  to  put  aside  any  of  the  great 
principles  it  has  advocated,  in  order  to  win  Demo 
cratic  votes.  If  this  opinion  is  sincerely  held,  as 
they  insist  and  as  I  believe,  it  ought  to  determine 
their  action  without  reference  to  what  anybody  else 
may  do.  And  I  submit  to  these  gentlemen,  for  whose 
opinions  I  have  the  highest  respect,  whether,  if  it 
be  true,  as  they  say,  that  the  success  of  the  Chi 
cago  nominee  would  plunge  this  country  into  irre 
trievable  commercial  distress  and  drag  the  nation's 
honor  in  the  dust,  there  can  be  any  question  for 
them  but  this:  "How  can  we  most  surely  defeat 
the  Chicago  nominee?" 

Neither    conventions    nor    committees    can    create 


THE   REPUBLICAN    RATIFICATION    MEETING      429 

issues,  nor  assign  them  their  places  in  a  campaign. 
That  is  the  leading  issue  of  a  campaign  which  most 
agitates  and  most  interests  the  people.  In  my  opin 
ion  there  is  no  issue  presented  by  the  Chicago  con 
vention  more  important  and  vital  than  the  issue 
raised  as  to  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  national 
courts  and  the  national  executive.  The  defense  of 
the  constitution,  of  the  integrity  of  the  supreme 
court  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  president's 
power  and  duty  to  enforce  all  of  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  without  awaiting  the  call  or  the  con 
sent  of  the  governor  of  any  state,  has  again  be 
come  an  important  and  living  issue.  Tariff  and 
coinage  laws  will  be  of  little  moment  if  our  consti 
tutional  government  is  overthrown.  When  we  have 
a  president  who  believes  that  it  is  neither  his  right 
nor  his  duty  to  see  that  the  mail  trains  are  not  ob 
structed  and  that  interstate  commerce  has  its  free 
way,  irrespective  of  state  lines,  and  courts  that  fear 
to  use  their  ancient  and  familiar  powers  to  restrain 
and  punish  law-breakers,  free  trade  and  free  silver 
will  be  appropriate  accompaniments  of  such  an  ad 
ministration,  and  can  not  add  appreciably  to  the  na 
tional  distress  or  the  national  dishonor. 

There  is  only  one  rule  by  which  we  can  live  use 
fully  as  a  nation  or  peacefully  as  citizens.  It  is  the 
rule  of  the  laws,  constitutionally  enacted  and  finally 
interpreted  by  the  judicial  tribunal  appointed  by  the 
•constitution.  When  it  becomes  the  rule  that  vio- 


43O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

lence  carries  its  end,  we  have  anarchy — a  condition 
as  destructive  to  honest  labor  and  its  rewards  as 
death  is  to  the  tissues  of  the  human  body. 

The  atmosphere  of  the  Chicago  convention  was 
surcharged  with  the  spirit  of  revolution.  Its  plat 
form  was  carried,  and  its  nominations  made  with  ac 
companying  incidents  of  frenzy  that  startled  the  on- 
loo'kers  and  amazed  the  country.  The  courts  and  the 
president  were  arraigned  for  enforcing  the  laws,  and 
government  by  the  mob  was  given  the  preference 
over  government  by  the  law  enforced  by  court  de 
crees  and  by  executive  orders.  The  spirit  that  ex 
hibited  itself  in  this  convention  was  so  wild  and 
fierce  that  Mr.  Bryan  likened  it  to  the  fiery  zeal  that 
possessed  the  crusaders  who  responded  to  the  im 
passioned  appeals  of  Peter  the  Hermit  to  rescue  the 
sepulcher  of  our  Lord  from  the  hands  of  the  infidels. 
His  historical  illustration  was  more  apt  then  he  knew, 
for  the  zeal  of  the  crusaders  was  a  blind  and  ignorant 
zeal;  they  sought  to  rescue  the  transient  and  ineffect 
ual  sepulcher  that  had  held  the  body  of  the  Son  of 
God,  while*  they  trampled  upon  the  precepts  of  love 
and  mercy  which  He  had  left  for  their  guidance  in 
life.  He  tells  us  further  that  this  silver  crusade  has 
arrayed  father  against  son,  and  brother  against 
brother,  and  has  sundered  the  tenderest  ties  of  love. 
Senator  Hill,  watching  the  strange  proceedings,  had 
to  extend  that  brief  political  creed  from  which  he 
has  gained  so  much  renown.  He  felt  compelled  to 


THE   REPUBLICAN    RATIFICATION    MEETING      43! 

say:  "I  am  a  Democrat,  but  I  am  not  a  revolu 
tionist."  Senator  Vest,  realizing  that  they  were  in 
augurating  a  revolution,  reminded  the  convention 
that  revolutions  did  not  begin  with  the  rich  and  pros 
perous.  Mr.  Tillman  felt  that  the  change  in  the 
management  of  public  affairs  was  to  be  so  radical 
that  he  proposed  sulphur  fumigation  for  the  ship  be 
fore  the  new  crew  took  possession  of  it. 

Now,  my  friends,  all  these  things  indicate  the 
temper  in  which  the  platform  was  adopted  and  the 
nominations  made.  There  was  no  calm  deliberation. 
There  was  frenzy.  There  was  no  thoughtful  search 
ing  for  the  man  who,  from  experience,  was  most 
able  to  direct  public  affairs.  There  was  an  impuls 
ive  response  to  an  impassioned  speech.  Not  amid 
such  surroundings  as  these,  not  under  such  influ 
ences,  are  those  calm,  discreet  things  done  that  will 
commend  themselves  to  the  judgment  of  the  Ameri 
can  people.  They  denounce  in  their  platform  inter 
ference  by  federal  authority  in  local  affairs  as  a  vio 
lation  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  and  a 
crime  against  free  institutions.  Mr.  Tillman,  in  his 
speech,  applied  this  declaration.  It  was  intended  to 
be  a  direct  condemnation  of  Mr.  Cleveland,  as  presi 
dent  of  the  United  States,  for  using  the  power  of 
the  executive  to  brush  out  of  the  way  every  obstacle 
to  the  free  passage  of  the  mail  trains  of  the  United 
States  and  of  interstate  commerce.  My  friends, 
whenever  our  people  elect  a  president  who  believes 


432  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

that  he  must  ask  of  Governor  Altgeld,  or  of  any 
governor  of  any  state,  permission  to  enforce  the  laws 
of  the  United  States  we  have  surrendered  the  vic 
tory  the  boys  won  in  1861. 

In  1 86 1  the  question  was  raised  whether  the 
United  States  coufd  pass  its  troops  through  Ken 
tucky  to  meet  a  rebel  army  in  Tennessee.  We  were 
four  years  in  settling  the  question  fully — but  it  was 
settled  forever.  My  friends,  this  division  of  pow 
ers  between  the  general  and  local  authorities  is  a 
plain  and  easy  one.  A  disturbance  which  is  purely 
local  in  a  state  is  a  state  affair.  The  president  can 
not  send  troops  or  lend  any  aid  unless  the  legisla 
ture  calls  upon  him  for  help,  or  the  governor,  if  the 
legislature  is  not  in  session.  But  when  a  law  of  the 
United  States  is  resisted,  it  is  the  sworn  duty  of  the 
president  to  execute  it;  and  this  convention  arraigns 
the  president  for  doing  what  his  oath  compelled  him 
to  do.  Comrades  of  the  war  for  the  Union,  sons 
of  those  that  went  out  to  battle  that  the  flag  might 
not  lose  its  luster,  will  you  consent,  after  these  years, 
that  the  doctrine  that  was  shot  to  death  in  the  great 
war  shall  be  revived  and  made  victorious  in  a  civil 
campaign  ? 

But  this  assault  does  not  end  there.  The  supreme 
court  of  the  United  States  and  the  lower  federal 
courts  are  arraigned  because  they  use  the  familiar 
writ  of  injunction  to  suppress  violence,  to  restrain 
men  from  breaking  the  law;  and  that  platform  plain- 


THE   REPUBLICAN    RATIFICATION    MEETING      433 

ly  means — I  will  show  you  that  it  was  so  under 
stood  in  the  committee  on  resolutions — that  when 
the  supreme  court,  exercising  its  constitutional  pow 
er  and  duty,  gives  an  interpretation  to  a  law  of  the 
United  States  that  is  not  pleasing  to  congress,  they 
will  increase  the  number  of  judges  and  pack  the 
court  to  get  a  decision  to  please  them. 

Our  fathers  who  framed  this  government  divided 
its  great  powers  between  three  great  departments — 
the  legislative,  the  executive  and  the  judicial.  They 
sought  to  make  these  independent,  the  one  of  the 
other,  so  that  neither  might  overshadow  or  destroy 
the  other.  The  supreme  court,  the  most  dignified 
judicial  body  in  the  world,  was  appointed  to  inter 
pret  the  laws  and  the  constitution,  and  when  that 
court  pronounces  a  decree  upon  any  constitutional 
question,  there  is  but  one  right  method,  if  we  dis 
agree,  to  overturn  the  decree,  and  that  is  the  meth 
od  pointed  out  by  the  constitution,  to  amend  it  to 
conform  to  the  views  of  the  people.  Mr.  Hill  said 
in  his  convention  speech  as  to  this  assault  upon  the 
court:  "That  provision,  if  it  means  anything, 
means  that  it  is  the  duty  of  congress  to  reconstruct 
the  supreme  court  of  the  country.  It  means" — and 
now  note  his  words — "and  it  was  openly  avowed 
that  it  means  the  adding  of  additional  members  to 
it  or  the  turning  out  of  office  and  reconstructing  the 
whole  court.  I  will  not  follow  any  such  revolution 
ary  step  as  that." 


434  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

You  are  to  answer,  then,  my  fellow-citizens,  in 
all  the  gravity  of  a  great  crisis,  whether  you  will 
sustain  a  party  that  proposes  to  destroy  the  balance 
which  our  fathers  instituted  in  our  system  of  gov 
ernment  and  to  inaugurate  the  policy  that  whenever 
a  tumultuous  congress  disagrees  with  the  supreme 
court  and  a  subservient  president  is  in  the  White 
House,  the  judgment  of  the  court  shall  be  reconsid 
ered  and  reversed  by  increasing  the  number  of 
judges  and  packing  the  court  with  men  who  will 
decide  as  congress  wants  them  to.  I  can  not  exag 
gerate  the  danger  of  this  assault  upon  our  constitu 
tional  .form  of  government.  One  of  the  kindest  and 
most  discriminating  critics  who  ever  wrote  with  a 
foreign  pen  about  American  affairs,  Mr.  Bryce,  in 
his  "American  Commonwealth,"  pointed  out  the  dan 
ger  growing  out  of  the  fact  that  the  constitution 
did  not  fix  the  number  of  the  supreme  court  judges, 
and  that  it  was  possible  for  a  reckkss  congress  and 
a  reckless  executive  to  subordinate  and  practically 
destroy  the  supreme  court  by  the  process  I  have  just 
described.  After  speaking  of  this  he  says:  "What 
prevents  such  assaults  on  the  fundamental  law? 
Nothing  but  the  fear  of  the  people,  whose  broad, 
good  sense  and  attachment  to  the  principles  of  the 
constitution  may  be  generally  relied  upon  to  con 
demn  such  a  perversion  of  its  powers." 

Our  English  friend  did  not  misjudge  us,  I  think. 
The  sound,  good  sense  of  the  American  people, 


THE   REPUBLICAN   RATIFICATION    MEETING     435 

when  an  issue  like  this  is  presented,  can  be  depended 
upon  to  save  the  courts  from  the  threatened  destruc 
tion.  The  question  is — whether  Mr.  Bryan's  view 
or  Mr.  Tillman's  view  of  a  constitutional  question 
shall  prevail,  or  that  of  the  august  tribunal  appointed 
by  the  constitution  to  settle  it.  The  courts  are  the 
defense  of  the  weak.  The  rich  and  powerful  have 
other  resources,  but  the  poor  have  not.  A  high- 
minded,  independent  judiciary  that  will  hew  to  the 
line  on  questions  between  wealth  and  labor,  between 
the  rich  and  the  poor,  is  the  defense  and  security  of 
the  defenseless. 

I  do  not  intend  to  spend  any  time  in  the  discussion 
of  the  tariff  question.  That  debate  has  been  won 
and  need  not  be  protracted. 

It  might  have  run  on  eternally  upon  theoretical 
lines.  We  had  some  experiences,  but  they  were  his 
torically  remote,  and  so  not  very  instructive  to  this 
generation.  We  needed  an  experience  of  our  own, 
and  we  have  had  it.  It  has  been  a  hard  lesson,  but 
a  very  convincing  one,  and  everybody  was  in  the 
school-house  when  it  was  given.  Mr.  Depew,  whose 
absolute  accuracy  and  verity  when  he  tells  a  story  you 
all  know,  in  telling  that  story  of  our  talk  on  the 
White  House  'steps,  did  an  unintentional  injury  to 
my  modesty.  I  did  not  say  or  for  a  moment  sup 
pose  that  any  influence  or  act  of  mine  had  lifted  the 
tide  of  American  prosperity  to  a  mark  on  the  stone 
higher  than  any  other  flood  record.  The  Republican 


436  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

policies  were  the  lifting  forces.  As  I  have  more  than 
once  said,  it  is  a  conflict  of  policies,  not  of  men. 
And  in  this  tariff  debate,  if  it  is  to  go  on,  we  have 
history  so  fresh  and  recent,  history  so  indelibly  writ 
ten  on  the  hearts  and  minds  of  our  people,  that  cer 
tain  things  must  be  admitted,  and  among  those 
things  is  this  historical  fact  that  in  1892  we  had  the 
most  prosperous  times,  the  most  general  diffusion  of 
prosperity,  and  the  highest  mark  of  prosperity  that 
we  have  ever  attained  as  a  nation. 

Now  what  has  happened  since?  Then  our  busi 
ness  prosperity  was  like  the  strong  current  of  a 
mighty  river  flowing  bank  full;  now  it»is  like  a  fail 
ing  spring  in  an  August  drought.  A  panic  in  1893 
of  a  most  extraordinary  character  has  been  succeed 
ed  by  a  gradual  drying  up  less  and  less  and  less,  un 
til  universal  business  distraction  and  anxiety  pre 
vail  in  all  our  communities.  I  do  not  believe  there 
has  ever  been  a  time,  except  perhaps  in  the  very 
stress  of  some  active  panic,  when  watchfulness  even 
to  the  point  of  desperation  has  so  characterized  this 
great  metropolis  as  it  does  to-day.  Men  have  been 
afraid  to  go  away  for  a  vacation.  They  have  felt 
that  they  must  every  day  in  this  burning  heat  come 
into  the  city  and  watch  their  business.  That  is  the 
situation. 

What  has  brought  it  about?  Gentlemen,  who  is 
there  to  defend  the  Wilson  tariff  bill?  Who  says 
it  is  a  good  tariff  measure?  I  do  not  believe  a 


THE   REPUBLICAN    RATIFICATION    MEETING      437 

Democrat  can  be  found  to  say  that  it  is.  Mr.  .Cleve 
land  repudiated  it.  It  was  so  .bad  that  he  would 
not  attach  his  official  signature  to  it,  and  it  became 
a  law  without  it.  He  said  it  was  full  of  incongru 
ities  and  inequalities.  And  yet  it  was  a  better  one 
than  he  wanted  to  give  us.  What  has  been  the  re 
sult  of  that  measure?  When,  two  years  ago,  dur 
ing  the  Morton  campaign  in  New  York,  I  discussed 
this  question,  I  said  that  the  old  Democratic  doc- 
'trine  was  that  the  burden  of  our.  public  expenses 
should  be  laid  upon  importations,  that  the  tariff 
should  provide  for  the  cost  of  running  our  govern 
ment,  and  I  pointed  out  then  how  our  Democratic 
friends  had  left  that  platform  and  were  now  endeav 
oring  to  obtain  revenue  by  internal  taxation  rather 
than  to  allow  the  support  of  the  government  to  fall 
upon  the  importations  of  foreign  goods.  What  has 
been  the  result?  One  of  these  experiments  in  inter 
nal  taxation,  the  income  tax,  was  held  to  be  uncon 
stitutional  by  the  supreme  court. 

So  eager  were  our  Democratic  friends  to  put  di 
rectly  upon  our  people,  according  to  the  English  sys 
tem,  taxes  to  support  our  government,  that  they 
passed  an  unconstitutional  act  in  order  to  levy  inter 
nal  taxes  and  help  out  a  tariff  bill  which  had  reduced 
the  duties  upon  imports.  Now,  what  has  been  the 
effect  of  that?  The  Wilson  bill  has  failed  to  pro 
duce  revenue  enough,  supplemented  by  our  internal 
taxes,  to  maintain  the  government.  There  has  been 


438  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

an  annual  deficit  approaching  $50,000,000,  and  the 
national  treasury  has  been  continually  in  a  state  of 
embarrassment.  Our  manufacturers,  left  without  ade 
quate  protection,  have  been  successively  and  grad 
ually  closing  up  and  putting  out  their  fires.  But 
not  only  has  it  produced  this  effect,  it  has  directly 
and  strongly  contributed  to  the  financial  depression 
that  we  are  in.  The  maintenance  of  the  gold  re 
serve  at  $100,000,000  by  the  government  for  the  re 
demption  of  our  notes  is  essential  to  confidence  in 
the  stability  of  our  finances.  When  the  government 
reserve  runs  down  people  begin  at  once  to  say :  "We 
may  come  to  a  silver  basis;  gold  is  going  out;  the 
reserve  is  going  down." 

But  how  can  you  keep  a  gold  reserve  of  $100,000,- 
ooo  when  you  have  not  got  $100,000,000  in  the 
treasury  all  told?  How  can  you  maintain  the  gold 
reserve  when  you  have  an  annual  and  continual  def 
icit  in  your  income? 

So  that,  my  friends,  this  tariff  bill  has  not  only 
contributed  by  increasing  importation,  by  taking 
away  needful  support  from  our  own  manufacturers, 
but  it  has  contributed  by  increasing  the  silver  scare 
to  bring  us  into  the  condition  of  distrust  and  dis 
may  which  now  prevails.  The  bond  sales  have  been 
made  necessary  by  reason  of  this  deficit.  It  is  one 
thing  when  you  have  a  good  surplus  in  the  treasury 
to  keep  up  the  gold  reserve,  and  quite  another  when 
you  have  no  surplus  at  all. 


THE   REPUBLICAN.  RATIFICATION    MEETING      439 

But  I  do  not  intend  to  follow  the  tariff  question 
further.  I  am  quite  as  much,  however,  opposed  to 
cheapening  the  American  workingman  and  working- 
woman  as  I  am  to  cheapening  our  dollars.  I  am  quite 
as  strongly  in  favor  of  keeping  day's  work  at  home 
as  gold  dollars.  If  it  could  be  known  to-night  that 
that  gallant  soldier,  that  typical  young  American, 
that  distinguished  and  useful  statesman,  William  Mc- 
Kinley  of  Ohio,  would  certainly  be  elected  president, 
how  the  bears  would  take  to  cover  on  the  stock  ex 
change  to-morrow! 

My  friends,  as  a  Republican  I  am  proud  of  many 
things,  but  I  can  sum  up  as  the  highest  satisfaction  I 
have  had  in  the  party  and  its  career  that  the  pros 
pect  of  Republican  success  never  did  disturb  business. 

In  connection  with  this  financial  matter,  do  we  all 
realize  how  important  the  choice  of  a  president  is? 
Do  you  know  that  as  the  law  is  now,  without  the 
passage  of  any  free  coinage  law  at  all,  it  is  in  the 
power  of  the  president  of  the  United  States  to  bring 
the  business  of  this  country  to  a  silver  basis?  All 
he  has  to  do  is  to  let  the  gold  reserve  go,  to  pay  out 
silver  when  men  ask  for  gold,  and  we  are  there  al 
ready.  It  is  only  because  the  presidents  of  the  United 
States  that  we  have  had,  and  the  one  we  have  now, 
have  regarded  it  under  the  law  as  their  public  duty 
to  maintain  that  parity  between  our  gold  and  silver 
coins  which  the  law  declares  is  the  policy  of  the  gov 
ernment,  and  because  they  have  had  the  courage  to 


440  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

execute  the  powers  given  to  them  by  the  resumption 
act  to  carry  out  that  declaration  of  public  law,  that 
we  are  not  now  on  a  silver  basis.  I  undertake, 
therefore,  to  say  that  if  Mr.  Bryan  or  a  man  holding 
his  views  were  in  the  presidential  chair,  without  any 
legislation  by  congress  we  should  be  on  a  silver  basis 
in  a  week's  time. 

Three  or  four  years  ago,  when  1  was  in  New  York, 
one  of  those  reporters  who  hear  things  that  are  not 
intended  for  them,  got  hold  of  a  remark  of  mine  about 
the  wild  .horses  that  Mr.  Cleveland  had  to  handler- 
I  simply  meant  by  that  what  has  been  since  demon 
strated,  that  he  did  not  have  a  compact  or  solidified 
party  behind  him;  that  the  Democratic  party  in  con 
gress  represented  every  shade  of  "ism"  that  had  ever 
been  produced  in  the  country,  and  that  he  could  not 
get  on  with  it.  My  prophecy  has  become  a  verity. 
They  abandoned  him,  and  now,  as  that  caution  was 
meant  to  indicate  that  we  needed  to  look  out  for  con 
gress  as  well  as  our  president,  this  caution  is  intend 
ed  to  show  you  at  this  time  that  we  need  to  look  after 
our  president  if  we  would  avoid  the  calamity  of  hav 
ing  this  country  put  upon  the  Mexican  basis  of 
money. 

The  silver  question — what  is  it?  Do  we  want  sil 
ver  because  we  want  more  money,  a  larger  circulat 
ing  medium  ?  I  have  not  heard  anybody  say  so.  Mr. 
Bryan  is  not  urging  it  upon  that  basis.  If  anybody 
were  to  give  that  as  a  reason  for  wanting  free  sil- 


THE   REPUBLICAN   RATIFICATION    MEETING      441 

ver,  he  would  be  very  soon  confounded  by  the  fact 
that  free  silver  would  put  more  gold  out  of  circu 
lation  than  the  mints  of  the  United  States  could  pos 
sibly  bring  in  in  years  of  silver,  and  that  instead  of 
having  more  money,  we  should  have  less.  Our  six 
hundred  and  odd  millions  of  gold  driven  out  of  cir 
culation  will  reduce  the  per  capita  money  of  this 
country  between  $8  and  $9.  So  it  is  not  for  more 
money.  We  have  an  abundant  supply  of  circulating 
medium — gold,  silver,  national  bank  paper,  green 
backs,  treasury  notes,  fractional  silver.  We  have 
something  like  $23  per  capita  of  our  population. 
What  is  .it,  then,  that  creates  the  demand  for  free 
silver?  It  is  openly  avowed  it  is  not  more  dollars, 
but  cheaper  dollars,  that  are  wanted.  It  is  a  lower 
standard  of  value  that  they  are  demanding.  They 
say  gold  has  gone  up  until  it  has  ceased  to  be  a 
proper  standard  of  values,  and  they  want  silver.  But 
how  do  they  want  it?  Now,  my  friends,  there  is  a 
great  deal  of  talk  about  bimetallism  and  the  double 
standard,  and  a  great  deal  of  confusion  in  the  use 
of  these  terms.  Bimetallism  is  the  use  of  the  two 
metals  as  money.  By  a  double  standard  we  mean 
that  we  shall  have  a  gold  dollar  and  a  silver  dollar 
which  shall  be  units  of  value  by  which  all  property 
and  all  wages  and  everything  is  to  be  measured. 
Now,  our  fathers  thought  that  when  they  used 
these  two  metals  in  coinage  as  money  units — a  double 
standard — they  must  determine  the  intrinsic  relative 


442  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

value  of  the  two.  That  a  comparison  of  the  markets 
of  the  world  would  show  just  what  relation  one 
ounce  of  silver  bore  to  one  ounce  of  gold;  how 
many  ounces  of  silver  it  took  to  be  equal  to  one 
ounce  of  gold,  and  they  carefully  went  about  ascer 
taining  that  ratio.  Thomas  Jefferson  and  Alexan 
der  Hamilton  gave  their  great  powers  to  the  deter 
mination  of  that  question.  They  collected  the  mar 
ket  reports  and  when  they  had  found  what  appeared 
to  be  the  general  and  average  relative  value  of  the 
two  metals  they  fixed  upon  a  ratio  between  them. 

Now,  what  was  the  object  of  all  that?  Why  did 
they  not  "lump"  it?  Because  they  fully  understood 
that  unless  these  dollars  were  of  the  same  intrinsic 
value  both  of  them  could  not  be  standards  of  value 
and  both  could  not  circulate.  Why,  every  boy 
knows  that  it  is  essential  that  the  length  of  his  stilts 
below  the  tread  shall  be  the  same.  What  is  the  law 
that  governs  here?  It  is  just  this  simple  law  of  hu 
man  selfishness  and  self-protection  that  if  you  have 
two  things  either  of  which  will  pay  a  debt  and  one 
is  not  as  valuable  as  the  other,  you  are  sure  to  give 
the  less  valuable  one.  It  is  upon  the  principle  that 
a  man  who  can  pay  a  debt  with  one  dollar  won't 
give  two — precisely  that.  So  that  unless  these  two 
units  maintain  approximately  the  relative  value  as 
signed  to  them  in  coinage,  so  that  sixteen  ounces  of 
silver  is  worth  one  ounce  of  gold,  you  can  not  make 
such  dollars  circulate  together.  The  one  that  is  the 


THE   REPUBLICAN    RATIFICATION    MEETING      443 

more  valuable  the  man  will  keep  in  his  pocket,  or 
he  will  sell  it  to  a  bullion  broker,  and  everybody 
will  use  the  other.  It  is  an  old  law,  proclaimed 
years  ago  in  England  by  Gresham,  that  the  cheaper 
dollar  drives  the  better  one  out.  It  has  been  illus 
trated  in  our  history  repeatedly.  It  has  been  illus 
trated  in  the  history  of  every  commercial  nation  in 
the  world,  and  everybody  can  see  why  it  is  so.  You 
might  just  as  well  say  that  if  we  had  two  kinds  of 
bushels,  if  the  law  should  declare  that  sixty  pounds 
of  wheat  was  a  bushel  and  thirty  pounds  of  wheat 
was  a  bushel — that  the  farmer  would  deliver  wheat 
by  the  sixty-pound  measure. 

Now,  so  nice  were  our  fathers  about  this  adjust 
ment  that  they  went  into  decimal  fractions.  We  say 
1 6  to  i.  In  fact,  that  is  not  the  ratio.  It  is  15.988 
plus.  It  is  so  near  16  that  we  call  it  16,  but  the 
men  who  made  our  silver  dollar  and  our  gold  dol 
lar  were  so  nice  in  their  calculations  that  they  went 
into  decimal  fractions,  into  thousandths,  to  adjust  ac 
curately  the  coinage  to  the  commercial  ratio.  Now, 
what  do  these  people  propose  to  do?  To  take  any 
account  of  thousandths?  No.  When  the  markets  of 
the  world  fix  the  relative  value  of  silver  and  gold 
at  thirty  or  thirty-one  ounces  of  silver  to  one  ounce 
of  gold,  they  propose  to  say  sixteen.  Well,  my 
friends,  there  has  been  nothing  more  amusing — and 
yet  I  fear  that  with  the  thoughtless  it  may  have  been 
in  some  measure  misleading — than  the  repeated  dec- 


444  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

laration  of  Mr.  Bryan  that  everybody  admitted  that 
bimetallism  was  a  good  thing — there  is  no  debate  on 
that  subject — and  that  the  debate  of  the  campaign 
has  come  down  to  this  fine  point:  "The  Republicans 
say  that  we  can  not  have  this  good  thing  without 
the  consent  of  England,  and  we  say  we  can  have  it 
ourselves,"  and  he  has  endeavored  to  pivot  this  great 
campaign  with  its  tremendous  issues  upon  that  pin 
point. 

We  hear  a  great  deal  about  the  great  resources 
and  wealth  and  power  of  this  country,  and  I  do  not 
allow  anybody  to  go  beyond  my  appreciation  of 
them;  but  what  is  the  use  of  talking  about  all  that 
when  you  do  not  propose  to  put  this  wealth  and  power 
and  influence  behind  the  silver  dollar  at  all.  As 
things  are  now,  the  silver  dollars  that  we  have  are 
supported  by  the  government;  its  wealth  and  its 
pledge  are  behind  them.  The  government  has  issued 
these  dollars  on  its  own  account — not  for  the  mine 
owner — and  it  has  pledged  its  sacred  honor  that  it 
would  make  every  one  of  them  as  good  as  a  gold 
dollar.  And  that  is  a  powerful  support.  Without 
it,  disparity  between  these  two  metals  would  at  once 
show  itself  in  the  markets.  There  would  be  some 
reason  in  the  talk  which  our  Populistic  friends  in 
dulge  in  when  they  speak  of  the  power  of  this  gov 
ernment,  if  they  proposed  to  put  this  power  behind 
their  free  coinage.  But  they  do  not.  They  propose 
that  the  men  who  dig  silver  out  of  the  mines  may 


THE   REPUBLICAN   RATIFICATION    MEETING      445 

bring  it  to  the  mint  and  have  it  stamped  and  handed 
back  to  them  as  a  dollar,  the  government  having  no 
responsibility  about  it. 

These  men  would  reject  with  contempt  the  propo 
sition  that  free  coinage  should  come  with  a  pledge 
on  behalf  of  the  government  to  maintain  the  parity 
of  the  two  dollars.  But  this  appeal  is  well  adapted 
to  touch  our  American  bumptiousness,  and  well 
adapted  to  touch  that  prejudice  against  England 
which  many  people  have.  But  can  we  do  this  thing 
ourselves?  Is  it  a  question  whether  we  will  do  it,  or 
wait  somebody's  consent?  Not  at  all. 

I  will  tell  you  what  this  government  can  do  alone. 
It  can  fix  its  money  unit.  It  can  declare  by  law  what 
shall  be  the  relative  value  of  an  ounce  of  gold  and  an 
ounce  of  silver,  but  it  can  not  make  fchat  last  declara 
tion  good.  It  is  unquestionably  fully  within  the  power 
of  the  government  to  bring  this  country  to  a  silver 
basis  by  coining  silver  dollars  and  making  them  legal 
tender.  This  government  can  say  you  shall  take 
these  dollars  in  discharge  of  any  debt  owing  to  you, 
notwithstanding  you  may  have  loaned  gold  dollars; 
but  it  can  not  say,  and  enforce  its  decree,  if  it  should 
call  out  the  regular  army  and  navy  and  muster  all 
our  great  modern  ships  and  add  the  militia,  and  put 
William  J.  Bryan  in  command  of  them — it  can  not 
enforce  the  decree  that  one  ounce  of  gold  is  the 
equivalent  of  sixteen  ounces  of  silver.  Not  only  that, 
not  France  and  England  and  Germany  can  do  that 


446  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

unless  the  markets  respond.  Why?  You  may 
make  me  take  a.  silver  dollar  for  a  debt,  but  you  can 
not  make  me  give  as  many  yards  of  cloth  for  a  sil 
ver  dollar  as  I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  giving  for 
a  gold  one. 

If  I  have  a  gold  dollar  in  this  hand  and  a  silver 
one  in  that,  and  you  declare  they  are  equal,  and  I  can 
take  the  gold  dollar  to  a  bullion  broker  and  get  two 
silver  dollars  for  it,  I  know  it  is  a  lie.  If  I  have 
nothing  but  a  gold  dollar,  I  will  not  give  that  gold 
dollar  for  twenty  pounds  of  sugar.  I  will  take  it 
to  a  broker  and  get  two  silver  dollars  for  it,  get 
the  twenty  pounds  of  sugar  and  have  one  silver  dol 
lar  -left.  So  it  is,  my  friends.  We  can  of  ourselves, 
of  our  own  wisdom,  declare  the  unit  of  value.  We 
can  coin  silver  freely,  but  we  can  not  make  sixteen 
ounces  of  silver  equal  to  one  ounce  of  gold  unless 
it  is.  And  it  is  not  unless  the  merchants  take  it  at 
that  rate.  It  is  trade;  it  is  the  merchant;  it  is  the 
man  who  exchanges  and  deals  in  these  things  who 
fixes  the  relative  value,  and  if  you  do  not  adopt  in 
coinage  the  value  he  fixes,  the  gold  dollar  will  go 
out  of  circulation. 

What  is  another  consequence?  In  this  connection 
these  gentlemen  say,  "Why!  didn't  we  win  the  bat 
tle  of  Bunker  Hill?  Didn't  we  whip  the  British 
at  Yorktown?  And  do  you  mean  to  say  we  can't 
do  it  again  ?"^  The  logic  of  these  gentlemen — if  I 
may  use  such  a  term  in  connection  with  such  balder- 


THE    REPUBLICAN    RATIFICATION    MEETING      447 

dash — is  that  a  nation  that  can  do  these  great  things 
and  establish  its  political  independence  can  also  be 
financially  and  commercially  free.  It  can  not  be  free 
of  the  laws  of  trade.  You  can  say  that  ten  muskrat 
skins  are  equal  to  ten  beaver  skins,  but  that  does  not 
make  it  so;  the  fur  trader  is  stronger  than  congress 
in  settling  that  question. 

The  free  coinage  of  silver  now  is  the  financial  and 
moral  equivalent  of  a  declaration  that  fifty-cent  pieces 
are  dollars.  They  might  just  as  well  pass  a  law  that 
half  dollars  are  dollars.  That  would  not  make  it  so, 
would  it?  It  would  be  a  legal  dollar,  but  it  would 
not  buy  a  dollar's  worth  of  anything.  The  mer 
chant  would  take  care  of  himself.  A  man  keeps  a 
store  down  here  on  Broadway,  and  that  law  is  go 
ing  into  operation  to-morrow.  He  summons  all  his 
clerks,  buys  twenty-five  cents'  worth  of  pencils,  and 
before  he  opens  his  store  in  the  morning  he  has 
marked  up  his  goods  to  the  new  scale.  He  can  do 
that.  But  there  are  great  numbers  of  people  who 
enlist  our  interest,  and  some  of  them  enkindle  our 
sympathies,  who  can  not  use  the  pencil.  Take  the 
workingman.  He  can  not  go  to  the  pay-roll  with 
a  pencil  and  mark  it  up.  He  has  got  to  consult 
somebody.  He  has  to  enter  into  an  agreement.  He 
must  get  another  man's  consent  before  he  can  mark 
up  his  wages.  Then  there  is  the  pensioner,  those 
that  are  receiving  pensions  from  this  government  for 
gallant  deeds  done  in  the  war,  or  for  the  loss  of  loved 


448  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

ones.  They  can  not  take  their  pension  certificates, 
and  where  they  read  $8  make  them  read  $16.  They 
must  wait  for  an  appeal  to  congress,  and  a  eongress 
that  is  Populistic  in  character  would  be  unsympa 
thetic,  I  fear. 

What  can  the  depositors  in  our  savings  banks, 
this  great  company  of  widows  and  orphans,  the  peo 
ple  of  small  means,  who  are  putting  by  a  few  pen 
nies  daily  against  a  hard  time  in  life,  what  can  they 
do  when  this  change  eomes?  Can  they  take  their 
bank  passbook  and  where  it  says  $10  write  $20? 
Not  at  all.  Take  the  men  who  have  life  insurance 
— a  man  who  has  providently  taken  out  a  policy 
that  his  widow  and  children  might  not  come  to  want 
when  the  bread-winning  hand  was  stricken  in  death 
• — can  they,  where  the  policy  reads  $5,000,  make  it 
$10,000?  No. 

Can  the  managers  of  these  institutions  make  it 
right  with  them?  No.  This  policy  coerces  integ 
rity.  However  honest  a  president  of  a  savings  bank 
may  be,  however  full  of  sympathy  the  president  of 
a  life  association  may  be,  he  is  compelled  to  say: 
"All  of  the  loans  of  this  company  are  scaled  down 
to  fifty-cent  dollars.  We  loaned  dollars  that  were 
worth  one  hundred  cents;  we  are  now  being  paid 
in  the  reduced  dollar.  Although  our  integrity  re 
volts  against  it,  our  honesty  is  coerced  and  we  must 
pay  the  widow  one  half." 

My  friends,  these  men  surely  do  not  contemplate 


THE   REPUBLICAN   RATIFICATION    MEETING     449 

the  irretrievable  and  extensive  character  of  the  dis 
aster,  disturbance  and  disruption  which  they  are  pro 
posing  for  all  of  us  in  all  our  business  affairs,  great 
and  small.  Take  the  laboring  man;  how  full  of 
sympathy  they  are  for  him.  My  countrymen,  I 
never  spoke  a  false  word  to  the  laboring  man  in  my 
life.  I  have  never  sought  to  reach  his  vote  or  in 
fluence  by  appeals  to  that  part  of  his  nature  that  lies 
below  his  intellect  and  his  conscience.  I  have  be 
lieved,  and  I  believe  to-day,  that  any  system  that 
maintains  the  prices  of  labor  in  this  country,  that 
brings  hope  into  the  life  of  the  laboring  man,  that 
enables  him  to  put  by  that  which  gives  him  a  stake 
in  good  order,  in  the  property  of  the  country,  is 
the  policy  that  should  be  ours,  is  the  true  Ameri 
can  policy.  I  have  resisted  in  many  campaigns  this 
idea  that  a  debased  currency  can  help  the  working- 
man.  The  first  dirty  errand  that  a  dirty  dollar  does 
is  to  cheat  the  workingman. 

My.  friends,  a  cold,  statistical  inquiry,  non-parti 
san  in  its  character,  was  made  by  a  committee  of  the 
Senate  in  1890  and  some  following  years.  The  com 
mittee  was  composed  of  Democrats  and  of  Republi 
cans,  and  they  set  out  to  study  as  statisticians  the 
relative  prices  of  commodities  and  wages  at  differ 
ent  periods  in  the  history  of  our  country.  This  in 
vestigation  covered  the  years  of  the  war  when  we 
had  a  depreciated  currency.  It  showed  how  prices 
of  goods  went  up1  and  in  what  proportion  labor  ad- 


45O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

vanced.  Goods  went  up  rapidly,  because  the  pencil 
process  is  a  quick  process.  Wages  went  up  haltingly 
and  slowly,  because  the  employer  had  to  be  per 
suaded  and  the  pencil  wouldn't  serve.  Now,  I  have 
here  somewhere  a  memorandum  of  some  of  those 
facts  resulting  from  that  investigation.  Labor  in  one 
period  advanced  3  per  cent.  Goods,  the  things  the 
man  had  to  buy  out  of  his  wages  for  his  family  and 
his  living,  advanced  18  per  cent.  Through  another 
period  the  laborer's  wages  advanced  10  1-2  per  cent, 
and  the  price  of  goods  advanced  49  per  cent.  In  an 
other  period  the  wages  of  the  laborer  went  up  25 
per  cent,  and  the  price  of  merchandise  advanced  90 
per  cent.  In  another  period  the  laborer's  wages  went 
up  43  per  cent,  and  the  prices  of  goods  117  per  cent. 
Now,  these  statistics  are  the  result  of  a  cold,  scien 
tific  inquiry  made  by  men  of  both  parties  to  deter 
mine  what  the  truth  was,  and  the  truth  they  found 
was  an  enormous  disparity  between  the  advance  of 
the  cost  of  living  and  the  advance  of  wages.  La 
borers,  men  who  work,  whether  with  head  or  hand, 
would  do  well  to  take  these  facts  to  heart  and  settle 
the  question  after  that  broad,  deep  inquiry  to  which 
Mr.  Bryan  invites  them,  as  to  whether  they  want  to 
enter  into  another  experience  such  as  they  had  dur 
ing  the  war,  when  wages  advanced  so  slowly  and 
tediously,  and  the  cost  of  their  living  moved  up  so 
swiftly. 

I  have  sketched  very  hastily  some  of  the  evils  that 


THE   REPUBLICAN   RATIFICATION    MEETING      451 

will  result  from  this  change  to  a  debased  dollar — 
a  contraction  of  our  currency  by  the  exporting  of  our 
•gold  and  a  readjustment  of  everything.  I  read  the 
other  day  in  a  paper  a  most  amusing  description  of 
the  troubles  of  the  ticket  agent  at  Laredo,  a  station 
on  the  Mexican  railway,  who  had  to  sell  tickets  to 
people  who  came  from  the  United  States  with  United 
States  money,  going  into  Mexico,  and  to  people  who 
came  out  of  Mexico  and  who  offered  him  Mexican 
money.  He  had  a  large  book  bound  of  yellow  scratch 
paper,  and  he  had  to  cover  one  whole  sheet  in  his  cal 
culation  usually  when  he  sold  a  ticket.  That  is  what 
would  happen  everywhere.  Everything  would  have 
to  be  readjusted,  the  whole  business  of  the  country 
would  have  to  be  readjusted,  and  while  that  process 
was  going  on  uncertainty  would  characterize  busi 
ness,  resulting  in  panic  and  disaster. 

Now,  who  will  get  any  benefit?  Well,  the  man 
who  owes  a  debt  that  he  contracted  upon  a  gold 
basis  and  is  able  to  pay  it  with  a  fifty-cent  dollar. 
He  and  the  mine  owner,  who  gets  an  exaggerated  price 
for  the  products  of  his  mine,  are  the  only  two  people, 
or  classes  of  people,  that  I  can  see  that  would  have 
any  benefit  out  of  it.  My  friends,  the  people  who 
advocate  this  class  legislation,  this  legislation  favor 
able  to  the  mine  owners,  and  who  offer  this  tempta 
tion  of  repudiation  to  the  debtor  class,  are  members 
of  the  party  that  has  for  thirty  years  been  declaiming 
against  class  legislation. 


452  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

They  make  a  strong  appeal  to  the  farmer.  They 
say  it  will  put  up  prices.  Well,  in  a  sense,  yes. 
Nominally,  yes.  Really,  no.  If  wheat  goes  from 
fifty  cents  to  $i,  the  price  has  been  increased,  you  will 
say;  but  if  the  price  of  everything  else  has  gone 
up  in  the  same  proportion  a  bushel  of  wheat  won't 
buy  for  the  farmer  any  more  sugar  or  coffee,  or 
farming  implements,  or  anything  else  that  he  has 
to  purchase.  If  that  dollar  won't  buy  for  the  farm 
er  any  more  than  the  one  he  has  now,  where  is  the 
good  to  anybody  of  introducing  these  fictitious  prices  ? 
It  would  work  very  well  for  the  farmer  if  the  prices 
of  wheat,  hay,  oats  and  rye  would  double  and  noth 
ing  else  would  double,  but  if  everything  doubles,  who 
is  the  richer?  Only  the  man  who  bought  when  we 
had  an  honest  dollar  and  paid  in  a  debased  one; 
only  the  mine  owner  who  uses  this  government  to 
add  fifty  cents,  more  or  less,  to  the  value  of  every 
dollar's  worth  of  metal  that  he  produces  from  his 
mine. 

My  countrymen,  this  country  of  ours  during  the 
troublous  times  of  the  war  had  severe  trials,  but 
these  financial  questions  are  scarcely  less  troublous 
than  those.  During  those  times  we  had  accumulated 
a  debt  so  large  that  many  of  our  pessimistic  Demo 
cratic  friends  told  us  we  could  never  pay  it.  We  had 
a  currency  which  we  were  compelled  to  make  a  legal 
tender  that  the  constitution  might  live.  But  no 
sooner  had  the  war  ended  than  the  great  conscience 


THE   REPUBLICAN    RATIFICATION    MEETING      453 

of  this  people  declared  that  the  nation  that  had 
crushed  the  great  rebellion,  that  had  lifted  itself  to 
a  peerless  position  among  the  nations  of  the  earth, 
should  not  continue  to  have  a  depreciated  currency. 
We  resumed,  and  we  made  our  greenback  dollar 
a  par  dollar  in  gold.  Shall  we  now  in  these  times, 
when  all  the  ills  we  suffer  are  curable  if  we  will  pass 
a  revenue  bill  that  will  generously  replenish  the 
treasury  of  the  United  States,  that  will  generously 
protect  American  labor  against  injurious  competition 
and  bring  back  again  full  prosperity  to  all  our  peo 
ple — shall  we  now  contemplate  for  a  moment  or  al 
low  to  have  any  power  over  our  hearts  and  minds 
this  temptation  to  debase  our  currency  and  put  our 
country  financially  alongside  the  Asiatic  countries? 
Does  not  every  instinct  of  national  pride,  does  not 
every  instinct  of  self-interest,  does  not  our  thought 
ful  interest  in  others,  does  not  our  sense  of  justice 
and  honor  rise  up  to  rebuke  the  infamous  proposition 
that  this  government  and  its  people  shall  become  a 
nation  and  a  people  that  debases  its  currency  to  make 
debt-paying  more  easy? 


COMPULSORY  DISHONESTY 

The  Forum,  October,  1896 

Before  smokeless  powder  was  invented,  an  army 
was  sometimes  wrapped  in  the  black  gases  belched 
from  its  own  guns.  Its  soldiers  were,  in  some  re 
spects,  safer  than  when  the  air  was  clear,  but  the 
effectiveness  of  its  guns  was  greatly  lessened.  The 
silver  orators  do  not  use  smokeless  powder,  and, 
though  the  great  political  battle  has  only  begun,  the 
air  is  already  thick.  Let  us  go  to  a  hilltop,  or  a 
tree  top,  and  see  if  we  can  not  trace  the  lines — at 
a  few  points. 

The  free-silver  leaders  do  not  seem  to  me  to  deny 
what  their  opponents  assert — namely,  that  the  free 
coinage  of  silver  at  the  ratio  of  16  to  i  will,  if  the 
relative  commercial  value  of  gold  and  silver  remains 
unchanged,  wipe  out  about  one-half  of  every  existing 
promise  to  pay  money;  that  every  promissory  note, 
bond,  savings  deposit,  bank  deposit,  building  associa 
tion  certificate,  life  insurance  policy,  pension,  salary 
and  wage  contract  will  be  affected  precisely  as  if  the 
note,  bond,  certificate,  deposit  book,  contract  or  pen- 

454 


COMPULSORY  DISHONESTY  455 

•sion  certificate  had  been  surrendered  for  a  new  One 
in  which  was  written  one-half  the  amount  of  the 
old.  "How  much  owest  thou  unto  my  lord?"  And 
'he  said,  "A  hundred  measures  of  oil."  And  he  said 
unto  him,  "Take  thy  bill,  and  sit  down  quickly,  and 
write  fifty." 

A  Northwestern  senator  told  me,  when  the  silver 
debate  was  on  in  the  senate  in  189091,  that  a 
Southern  senator  had  said  to  him,  "I  do  not  want 
you  to  think  that  I  am  a  fool.  I  know  that  the  free 
coinage  of  silver  will  scale  the  debts  that  my  peo 
ple  owe — and  that's  what  we  want.  We  are  poor 
and  in  debt."  The  senator  thus  addressed  replied, 
"Well  I  think  you  have  saved  your  intellectual  in 
tegrity,  but  at  the  cost  of  your  moral  integrity." 
When  Senator  Hill,  of  New  York,  in  the  Chicago 
convention,  pressed  this  objection  to  free  coinage,  and 
Senator  Vilas,  of  Wisconsin,  declared  that  free  coin 
age  was  robbery,  Mr.  Bryan,  in  a  speech  that  won 
him  the  nomination  for  the  presidency,  had 'only  this 
to  say  in  reply: 

"But  if  he  means  to  say  that  we  can  not  change 
our  monetary  system  without  protecting  those  who 
have  loaned  money  before  the  change  was  made,  I 
want  to  ask  him  where,  in  law  or  in  morals,  he  can 
find  authority  for  not  protecting  the  debtors  when 
the  act  of  1873  was  passed,  but  now  insists  that  we 
must  protect  the  creditor?" 

Senator  Hill  offered  an  amendment  to  the  plat- 


456  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

form  to  carry  out  his  thought — that  when  the  United 
States  degraded  its  coined  dollars,  their  legal-tender 
quality  should  not  extend  to  existing  contracts. 
Some  of  the  newspapers  reported  that  the  resolution 
was  adopted  unanimously;  but  that  must  have  been 
a  mistake,  unless  the  convention  in  the  confusion 
failed  to  understand  the  question.  I  have  not  seen 
an  official  copy  of  the  platform,  but  it  is  understood 
that  the  presiding  officer  declares  that  Senator  Hill's 
amendment  was  rejected.  It  would  have  taken  the 
soul  out  of  the  free-silver  campaign;  and,  so  far 
from  offering  the  relief  that  Mr.  Bryan  promises  to 
the  farmer-debtor,  would  require  him  to  buy  gold  at 
an  enormous  premium  to  pay  his  debt,  while  he  sold 
his  products  for  silver. 

The  quotation  I  have  made  from  Mr.  Bryan's  con 
vention  speech — and  every  other  speech  that  I  have 
seen — seems  to  me  to  affirm  the  legal  and  moral  right 
of  the  United  States  to  degrade  its  money  standard, 
to  pay  its  obligations  in  the  debased  coin,  and  to  give 
to  its  citizens  the  right  to  discharge  their  debts  in 
the  same  way.  He  meets  the  champion  of  the  doc 
trine  that  the  dollar  of  payment  should  be  as  good 
as  the  dollar  borrowed,  with  a  general  denial  and  a 
counter-claim.  The  counter-claim  is  presented  in  be 
half  of  the  debtors  of  1873 — who,  he  intimates,  were 
injured  by  the  dropping  of  the  silver  dollar  from  our 
coinage  in  that  year. 

It  is  the  supposed  injury  to  the  debtors  of  1873 


COMPULSORY   DISHONESTY  457 

that  he  proposes  to  recoup  from  the  creditors  of 
1896.  He  takes  no  account  of  the  fact  that  the  debtor 
and  creditor  classes  are  not  fixed  classes  in  this  coun 
try;  that  the  debtor  of  1873  may  be  the  creditor  of 
1896;  and  that  the  counter-claim  pleaded  in  behalf  of 
the  debtors  of  1873  would  be  levied  on  their  own  goods 
in  considerable  part,  and  be  paid  to  the  men  who 
are  supposed  to  have  despoiled  them  in  1873.  About 
the  only  bond  that  runs  twenty-five  years  are  railroad 
and  other  corporate  bonds.  Farm  mortgages  rarely 
run  more  than  five  years.  The  railroads,  the  banks, 
the  large  corporations,  and  the  United  States  are  the 
great  debtors  of  1873,  who  are  still  in  the  debtor 
class;  and  among  their  creditors  are  the  thrifty  poor, 
the  widow,  the  orphan,  and  the  disabled  veteran. 
The  proposition  is  that  these  great  debtors  shall  now 
be  permitted  to  discharge  their  obligations  in  dol 
lars  worth  one-half  of  the  dollars  now  in  use.  I 
must  qualify  that  statement:  it  is  not  that  they  shall 
be  permited,  but  compelled,  to  pay  in  the  debased 
dollar.  Dishonesty  is  not  made  optional  but  compul 
sory;  for,  while  the  United  States  must  receive  its 
taxes  and  customs  dues,  and  the  banks  their  loans,  in 
the  new  dollar,  they  can  not  pay  in  the  old.  And, 
more  than  all  this,  we  are  promised  legislation  that 
shall  prohibit  us  from  promising  to  pay  in  gold  the 
gold  we  have  borrowed.  If  the  debtor  is  too  hon 
est  to  set  up  the  defense,  I  suppose  the  court  will 


458  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

be  required  to  appoint  a  guardian  ad  litem  to  file 
the  plea  for  him! 

Only  one  chance  of  escape  is  offered  to  us  from 
the  conclusion  that  one  of  the  great  historical  par 
ties  of  the  country  is  now  making  a  campaign  for 
the  repudiation  of  one-half  of  all  the  indebtedness 
of  the  country — national,  corporate  and  individual 
— and  that  is  found  in  the  suggestion  that  free  coin 
age  will  raise  the  value  of  silver  sufficiently  to  make 
the  silver  dollar  the  commercial  equivalent  of  the 
gold  dollar.  This  suggestion  was  put  forth  when 
Mr.  Bryan  was,  in  some  measure,  under  the  influence 
of  that  conservative  sense  of  responsibility  which  is 
usually  felt  by  the  man  who  is  proposed  for  the 
greatest  office  instituted  by  the  constitution.  But  it 
is  not  a  proposition  upon  which  the  free-silver  ad 
vocates  agree,  I  think.  It  is  not  put  to  the  front  of 
the  campaign — it  was  not  so  well  thought  of  as  to 
appear  in  the  platform,  either  as  a  probable  result 
of  free  coinage,  or  even  as  a  thing  to  be  desired.  To 
borrow  an  illustration  from  S.  S.  Prentiss,  Mr. 
Bryan  uses  the  suggestion — that  silver  will  rise  to  a 
parity  with  gold — as  a  heavy  bird  of  flight  uses  the 
limb  of  a  dead  tree  for  a  perch — the  bird  keeps  its 
wings  extended  and  in  gentle  motion  while  it  tries 
the  strength  of  the  limb.  I  have  not  observed  that 
Mr.  Bryan  has  much  argued  the  point.  Indeed,  he  has 
been  sharply  taken  to  task  by  friends  for  making  it. 
It  destroys  the  whole  silver  program.  They  say  that 


COMPULSORY  DISHONESTY  459 

gold  has  appreciated;  that  the  gap  between  the  sil 
ver  and  the  gold  dollar  has  been  wholly  caused  by 
the  rise  in  the  value  of  the  gold  dollar;  that  the  sil 
ver  dollar  is,  therefore,  the  old  and  true  measure  of 
values.  Now,  if  free  coinage  will  lift  the  value  of 
sixteen  ounces  of  silver  to  the  present  value  of  one 
ounce  of  gold,  silver  will  then  be  as  obnoxious  as 
gold.  The  whole  scheme  will  fail — for  the  scheme 
is  to  keep  silver  where  it  is.  Gold,  they  say,  cre 
ated  the  disparity  by  going  up;  and,  if  equality  is 
again  to  be  established,  gold  must  abandon  its  giddy 
flight  and  come  down  to  its  heavy  and  conservative  sis 
ter.  They  see  that  a  proposition  to  degrade  the  gold 
dollar,  by  the  use  of  an  alloy,  to  the  present  bullion 
value  of  the  silver  dollar  would  be  a  proposition  too 
raw  for  the  palates  of  the  people.  So  they  let  gold 
go — as  Mr.  Bryan  said,  they  will  neither  give  nor 
ask  quarter  in  the  fight  against  it.  By  the  free  coin 
age  of  silver  at  the  present  ratio  gold  will  be  ban 
ished  from  our  currency  and  from  our  country — for 
no  man  will  be  fool  enough  to  give  a  gold  dollar 
for  what  a  silver  dollar  will  buy,  when  he  can  ex 
change  his  gold  dollar  for  two  silver  ones;  and  no 
dollar  that  is  at  a  premium — that  is  worth  more  than 
its  face — will  circulate  as  money. 

But  it  is  not  true,  as  Mr.  Bryan  seems  to  intimate, 
that  the  law  of  1873  changed  our  money  standard  to 
the  injury  of  the  debtor  class.  The  silver  dollar 
was  dropped  from  our  coinage,  but  it  was  not  then 


'460  VIEWS    OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

a  cheap  dollar,  but  a  par  dollar — the  371  1-4  grains 
of  pure  silver  contained  in  it  were  the  full  equiva 
lent,  as  bullion,  of  the  23.22  grains  of  pure  gold 
contained  in  the  gold  dollar.  The  recent  treasury 
department  circular  (No.  123)  shows  that  the  av 
erage  bullion  value  of  371  1-4  grains  of  pure  silver 
during  the  year  1873  was  $1.004;  that  is,  the  com 
mercial  ratio  between  silver  and  gold  was  15.92 
to  I,  while  our  coinage  ration  was  15.9884  to  i.  It 
is  not  fair,  then,  to  liken  the  change  in  our  coin 
age  laws  made  in  1873  to  that  now  proposed.  The 
former  involved  neither  dishonesty  nor  oppression. 
The  dollar  that  was  dropped  and  the  dollar  that  was 
retained  were  commercial,  as  well  as  legal,  equiv 
alents;  and  the  change  did  not  favor  the  creditor 
class  nor  injure  the  debtor  class.  There  had  been 
coined  from  the  beginning  of  the  government  up  to 
1873  only  8,031,238  silver  dollars;  and  if  we  may 
indulge  the  impossible  suggestion  that  all  these  dollars 
were  in  circulation  in  1873,  the  debtors  then  had  only 
8  million  silver  dollars  to  use  in  paying  their  debts, 
while  now  they  have  more  than  438  millions  of  full 
legal-tender  silver  dollars  to  use  in  that  way. 

In  order  to  make  good  the  charge  that  the  law  of 
1873  wrought  the  injuries  imputed  to  it,  the  asser 
tion  is  made  that  the  gold  dollar  has  appreciated — 
gone  up.  And  how  do  they  set  about  proving  that 
gold  has  gone  up?  Condensed,  the  argument  is 
this:  It  takes  more  wheat  to  get  a  gold  dollar  than 


COMPULSORY  DISHONESTY  461 

formerly,  and,  therefore  the  gold  dollar  has  gone  up. 
But  the  deduction  from  that  premise  is  in  the  alter 
native — either  gold  has  gone  up  or  wheat  has  gone 
down.  Commonly,  we  would  say  wheat  is  lower,  and 
would  seek  the  explanation  in  a  large  general  crop  or 
in  diminished  consumption.  We  know  that  these 
things  do  affect  the  price  of  wheat  and  will  continue 
to  do  so  under  free  silver  coinage.  Drought  and  rust 
and  the  cinch  bug,  a  full  European  crop,  the  increas 
ing  output  of  Russia,  India  and  Argentina,  closed 
American  mills,  and  enforced  economy  in  the  homes 
of  American  workmen — these  things  always  have  af 
fected  and  always  will  affect  the  price  of  wheat.  An 
other  thing  to  be -taken  into  account  in  this  connection 
is  the  production  of  gold — for  if  a  large  wheat  crop 
means,  commonly,  a  lower  price,  so  a  large  crop  of 
gold  must  mean  a  lower  value  for  gold.  The 
world's  production  of  gold  in  1873  was  $96,200,000, 
and  only  in  two  years  since  then  has  it  fallen  be 
low  that  figure.  All  other  years  show  an  increase 
and  the  last  five  years  a  steady  and  enormous  in 
crease.  In  1894  the  production  was  $180,626,100, 
and  the  product  for  1895  is  estimated  at  $203,000,- 
ooo.  The  production  of  silver  has  increased  from 
$81,800,000  (coining  value)  in  1873  to  $216,892,- 
200  in  1894,  and  is  estimated  at  $226,000,000  for 
1895.  Or,  to  state  the  production  in  fine  ounces, 
gold  has  increased  from  4,653,675  ounces  in  1873 
to  9,820,125  ounces  in  1895,  and  silver  from  63,267,- 


462  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

187  ounces  in  1873  to  1 74» 79^^75  ounces  in  1895. 
In  view  of  these  considerations  and  of  these  fig 
ures  as  to  production,  who  is  wise  enough  to  say 
that  gold  has  gone  up  or  silver  down,  or  how  much 
either  metal  has  varied?  And  yet  it  is  assumed  that 
the  silver  dollar  has  been  a  true  and  stable  meas 
ure  of  value,  that  it  has  neither  gone  up  nor  gone 
down  since  1873,  an(^  tnat  ft  would  be  honest  to  re 
turn  to  that  standard  and  settle  all  contracts  by  it. 
Now  how  is  this  to  be  proved?  or  do  our  silver 
friends  think  it  worth  while  to  prove  anything? 

This  illustration,  used  by  Mr.  Bryan,  is  the  only 
attempt  at  argument  I  have  seen:  If — he  says — a 
man  able  to  perform  his  contracts  should  offer  to 
pay  one  dollar  per  bushel  for  all  the  wheat  brought 
to  him,  would  not  the  price  of  wheat  go  up  to  a  dol 
lar?  But  the  United  States  is  not  to  buy  the  silver 
— it  only  puts  a  stamp  on  it,  and  returns  it  to  the 
owner.  It  is  rather  as  if  a  miller  should  offer  to 
take  all  the  wheat  brought  to  him,  to  grind  it  into 
flour  without  charge,  to  put  each  one  hundred  pounds 
of  the  flour  into  a  barrel,  to  stamp  on  the  head  of 
it  "this  is  a  barrel  of  flour,"  and  to  return  it  to  the 
owner.  How  would  the  price  of  wheat,  or  of  flour, 
be  affected  by  that  transaction? 

There  are  many  people,  I  suppose,  who  would 
scorn  to  take  advantage  of  a  law  that  allowed  them 
to  have  a  full  discharge  from  their  debts  upon  the 
payment  of  fifty  cents  on  the  dollar,  but  who  do  pot 


COMPULSORY  DISHONESTY  463 

feel  humiliated  by  the  suggestion  that  they  shall  pay 
them  with  a  coin  called  a  dollar,  but  worth  only 
fifty  cents  as  compared  with  the  dollar  they  borrowed. 
It  is  said  to  be  the  old  dollar — the  dollar  of  the  con 
stitution,  and  of  the  fathers,  and  they  are  beguiled. 
It  is  neither — the  constitution  does  not  require  con 
gress  to  coin  silver  dollars  at  the  ratio  of  16  to  i,  or 
at  any  other  ratio,  or  at  all.  It  confers  upon  congress 
the  power  "to  coin  money,  regulate  the  value  there 
of,  and  of  foreign  coin/'  and  neither  gold  nor  silver 
is  anywhere  mentioned  in  the  constitution  save  in  a 
section  prohibiting  the  states  from  doing  certain 
things,  where  it  says:  "No  state  shall  *  *  * 
make  anything  but  gold  and  silver  coin  a  tender  in 
payment  of  debts."  It  is  not  the  old  dollar,  nor  the 
dollar  of  our  fathers;  for  their  dollar  was  based  upon 
the  then  existing  commercial  ratio  between  silver  and 
gold.  If  it  had  been  suggested  to  Hamilton  or  to 
Jefferson  that  while  the  commercial  ratio  between  sil 
ver  and  gold  was  31  to  i  we  should  coin  silver  dol 
lars  at  the  ratio  of  16  to  i,  they  would  have  sug 
gested  the  writ  de  lunatico  inquirendo.  They  fol 
lowed  the  commercial  into  three  decimal  numbers  to 
find  the  coining  ratio;  and  these  claim  to  be  their 
followers  who  say  that  the  commercial  ratio  should 
be  entirely  disregarded.  The  former  sought  a  ratio 
that  would  keep  both  dollars  in  circulation — the  lat 
ter,  one  that  gives  gold  to  Europe  and  associates  us 
with  Asia. 


464  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

But,  in  fact,  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  sil 
ver  would  appreciate  as  the  result  of  free  coinage, 
to  a  parity  with  gold  at  the  present  ratio.  All  that 
is  guesswork— a  guess  not  so  much  in  the  direction 
of  the  desires  of  the  silver  people,  but  to  allay  the 
fears  of  those  who  dread  silver-monometallism, 
while  desiring  as  large  a  use  of  silver  as  is  consist 
ent  with  the  parity  of  our  gold  and  silver  dollars. 
Two  of  the  leading  free-silver  senators,  when  the 
Sherman  bill  was  pending,  were,  I  know,  much  more 
positive  than  Mr.  Bryan  is  now  that  the  purchase 
by  the  government  of  4,500,000  ounces  of  fine  sil 
ver  per  month  would  take  up  the  silver  surplus  that 
they  said  was  weighing  down  the  market  price,  and 
so  make  and  keep  our  silver  dollar  at  par  with  the 
gold  dollar.  The  actual  result  was  that  371  1-4 
grains  of  pure  silver — worth  on  the  average  in  1889 
.724 — advanced  in  1890  to  .926,  and  then  declined 
each  year  until,  in  1894,  it  reached  the  low  limit 
of  .457.  Shall  we  trust  these  prophets  again  to  our 
cost? 

The  demand  for  more  legal-tender  greenbacks  in 
1873  was  tne  product  of  depressed  commercial  condi 
tions,  as  is  the  present  demand  for  free  silver  coinage ; 
but  the  former  was  based  upon  the  assumption  that 
our  per  capita  circulation  was  too  low;  that  we  did 
not  have  enough  money.  The  latter  is  not  based 
upon  that  assumption,  but  upon  the  assumption  that 
the  money  we  have  is  too  good — not  more  dollars, 


COMPULSORY   DISHONESTY  465 

but  cheaper  dollars  is  the  demand — not  a  silver  dol 
lar  that  will  abide  with  the  gold  dollar,  but  one  that 
will  exile  the  gold  dollar.  What  the  red  flag  is  to  a 
bull,  gold  is  to  the  free-silver  advocates.  It  excites 
their  rage;  they  want  to  gore  and  toss  it. 

Other  nations  that  are  upon  a  silver  basis  are 
struggling  to  be  rid  of  the  depression  and  trade  dis 
advantages  that  it  entails.  A  depreciated  currency, 
with  its  always  present  tendency  to  fluctuations,  is, 
whether  judged  by  philosophy  or  history,  a  curse.  No 
intelligent  commercial  people  is  now  content  to  use 
such  a  currency — except  under  the  severest  necessity 
— nor  to  continue  its  use  beyond  the  time  of  possible 
relief.  It  is  easy  to  fall  into  the  slough  and  hard 
to  get  out  of  it — but  it  is  harder  to  remain  in  it. 
This  great  people  will  not  consent  to  have  a  double 
standard — unless  each  money  unit  is  the  commercial 
equivalent  of  the  other;  and  if  they  must  have  a  sin 
gle  standard  they  will  have  the  best. 


"NO  MEAN  CITY" 

A  RESPONSE  AT  A  DINNER  GIVEN  BY  THE  COMMER 
CIAL  CLUB,  INDIANAPOLIS,  APRIL  21,   1897,  AT  WHICH 
HE    WAS   THE   GUEST   OF*  HONOR 

"No  mean  city."  The  apostle  Paul,  when  he  used 
these  words,  was  in  the  hands  of  a  Roman  guard 
that  had  come  on  the  run  to  deliver  him  from  a 
Jewish  mob.  The  captain  of  the  guard  believed  him 
to  be  the  leader  of  a  band  of  murderers,  but  he  did 
not  think  that  he  should  be  lynched.  Paul  appealed 
for  identification  and  for  consideration  to  the  fact 
that  he  was  a  native  of  Tarsus  in  Cilicia — a  citizen 
of  "no  mean  city."  To  be  ashamed  of  the  city  you 
live  in  is  a  lesser  sorrow  than  to  have  the  city 
ashamed  of  you,  but  still  a  heavy  sorrow.  There  is 
great  comfort  when  a  column  of  residence  is  to  be 
filled,  and  a  Boston  hotel  clerk  is  watching  the  evo 
lution  of  the  name,  in  not  being  put  to  any  disguise 
or  ambiguous  abbreviations.  Is  there  a  greater  tri 
umph  in  life  than  to  lift  your  eyes  from  the  reg 
ister  to  the  arbiter  of  destinies  on  the  other  side  of 
the  counter  and  to  see  that  his  fear  that  you  might 

466 


"NO  MEAN  CITY"  467 

blow  out  the  gas  has  been  allayed?  That  Indian 
apolis  is  not  an  Indian  reservation  with  a  classical 
termination  is  now  generally  known  in  the  Eastern 
states,  and  also  by  some  of  our  English  kin.  It 
seems  that  our  English  cousins  only  acquire  geog 
raphy  by  conquest,  and  only  recognize  political 
subdivisions  that  they  make  themselves.  The  geog 
raphy  of  lands  to  which  they  have  lost  title  seems 
to  go  hard  with  them — as  witness  the  recent  inquiry 
of  a  high  English  prelate  whether  New  England  was 
a  part  of  Massachusetts. 

Paul  used  no  superlatives  in  his  reference  to  Tar 
sus;  he  reserved  them  for  the  city  that  hath  foun 
dations.  He  assumed  that  there  was  carrying  force 
in  the  name  itself;  that  the  help  of  granulated  ad 
jectives  was  not  needed — "no  mean  city/'  He  left 
something  to  the  captain's  knowledge  and  imagina 
tion.  He  was  proud  of  Tarsus;  that  is  clear,  and 
he  was  not  a  man  to  be  satisfied  with  negations. 
The  city  had  done  something  distinctively  great,  and 
I  set  out  the  other  day,  with  the  help  of  the  ency 
clopedia,  to  see  if  I  could  find  out  what  it  was.  I 
find  in  the  first  place  that  it  was  a  great  seat  of 
learning.  Its  schools  were  of  the  highest  excellence, 
and  the  fame  of  them  was  as  wide  as  Greek  and  Ro 
man  scholarship.  Strabo  said  they  were  superior 
to  those  of  Athens  and  Alexandria.  Paul  was  a 
man  of  letters,  as  well  as  of  faith.  He  was  a  lo 
gician;  a  non  sequitur  was  an  abomination  to  him, 


468  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

as  it  ought  to  be  to  a  newspaper  man.  As  he  was 
proud  of  the  schools  of  Tarsus,  so  we  are  of  the 
schools  of  Indianapolis.  It  is  "no  mean  city." 

As  the  schools  of  Tarsus  surpassed  those  of 
Athens,  so  our*  public  schools,  judged  by  most  com 
petent  educational  experts,  are  not  surpassed  by  those 
of  any  city  in  the  United  States.  But  what  part, 
my  friends  of  the  Commercial  club,  have  you  and 
I  had  in  making  our  schools  what  they  are?  We 
have  paid  our  school  taxes  with  more  or  less  cheer 
fulness — or  with  none  at  all.  But  has  the  Commer 
cial  club  or  the  Board  of  Trade  ever  tendered  a  re 
ception  to  the  faithful  men  and  women  who  have 
placed  the  city  of  our  love  upon  a  pedestal  of 
honor?  One  of  the  oldest,  most  devoted  and  suc 
cessful  of  our  school  workers  recently  said:  "We 
rarely  hear  from  the  public  save  when  some  one 
wants  to  find  a  place  on  the  pay-roll  for  a  niece  or 
a  cousin."  There  are  now,  I  am  told,  in  our  city, 
in  addition  to  the  truant  class,  1,000  children  for 
whom  there  are  no  school  accommodations.  A 
general  tax  for  public  schools  implies  a  school  roof 
and  a  school  desk  for  every  child,  and  they  should 
be  provided.  The  compulsory  education  law  of  the 
last  legislature  should  be  backed  by  a  supporting  pub 
lic  sentiment.  We  should  have,  not  a  listless,  far- 
apart  pride  in  our  schools,  but  the  pride  of  touch 
and  participation.  Our  school  board  should  know 
that  while  the  Indianapolis  public  will  tolerate  no 


"NO  MEAN  CITY"  469 

filching,  no  self-seeking,  no  rings,  it  will  stand  by 
against  all  assaults  that  have  their  origin  in  self- 
interest,  or  in  the  egotistical  assumption  that  the 
critic  is  infallible. 

Tarsus  was  further  celebrated  for  its  magnificent 
roads,  we  are  told.  The  "ships  of  the  desert"  that 
bore  the  products  of  the  interior  through  the  passes 
of  the  Taurus  to  the  sea  did  not  have  their  roll  in 
tensified  by  the  right  foot  finding  a  hole  and  the  left 
a  hillock.  The  roads  were  favorable  to  an  even 
keel.  A  city  that  you  can  not  get  to  comfortably 
is  a  "mean  city."  And  here  we  may  raise  the  note 
of  exultation  an  octave  or  two  above  that  of  Paul 
— though  there  may  be  a  perceptible  quaver  when 
the  memory  of  a  drive  to  Irvington  or  Crown  Hill 
sweeps  over  the  choir.  But  our  great  railway  sys 
tem  saves  us.  Where  is  there  a  city  that  offers  such 
facilities  of  ingress  and  egress?  They  may  not  only 
come  from  the  north  and  the  east,  the  west  and  the 
south — but  they  may  box  the  compass  and  still  get 
here.  If  a  man  does  not  desire  to  go  to  any  place 
in  particular,  but  has  a  fancy  to  travel  "sou'  sou' 
west,"  or  "east  by  south,"  we  can  furnish  him  a 
smooth  road. 

Tarsus  was  besides  a  free  city,  and  the  seat  of  an 
important  commerce.  These  were,  so  far  as  I  know, 
the  special  distinctions  of  Tarsus.  No  doubt  there 
were  others  that  history  has  not  preserved.  But  the 
ideal  city  must  have  other  excellences.,  It  must  be 


4/O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

a  city  where  people  diligently  mind  their  own  busi 
ness,  and  the  public  business,  and  do  both  with  a 
decent  regard  to  the  judgment  and  rights  of  other 
men;  a  city  where  there  is  no  boss  rule  in  anything; 
where  all  men  are  not  brought  to  the  measure  of 
one  man's  mind,  or  to  the  heel  of  one  man's  will;  a 
city  whose  citizens  are  brave  and  true  and  gener 
ous,  and  who  care  for  their  own;  a  city  having  the 
community  spirit,  but  not  the  communistic  spirit; 
where  capital  is  respected,  but  has  no  temples;  a  city 
whose  people  live  in  homes,  where  there  is  room 
for  a  morning  glory  or  a  sweet  pea;  where  fresh 
air  is  not  delivered  in  pint  cups;  where  the  chil 
dren  can  every  day  feel  the  spring  of  nature's  green 
carpet;  where  people  are  not  so  numerous  as  to  sug 
gest  that  decimation  might  promote  the  general  wel 
fare;  where  brains  and  manners  and  not  bank  bal 
ances,  give  ratings  to  men;  where  there  is  neither 
flaunting  wealth,  nor  envious  poverty;  where  life  is 
comfortable  and  toil  honorable;  where  municipal  re 
formers  are  not  hysterical,  but  have  the  habit  of  keep 
ing  cool;  where  the  broad  judgment  of  a  capital, 
and  not  the  narrowness  of  the  province,  prevails; 
where  the  commerce  in  goods  is  great,  but  not  great 
er  than  the  exchanges  of  thought  and  of  neighborly 
kindness.  We  have  not  realized  all  these  things. 
We  count  not  ourselves  to  have  attained,  but  we 
follow  after. 

This  is  a  commercial  club;  but,  after  you  have  ex- 


"NO    MEAN    CITY." 


hibited  sites  and  statistics  to  the  man  seeking  a  business 
location,  he  will  want  to  know  about  the  homes,  the 
schools,  the  churches,  the  social  and  literary  clubs; 
whether  it  is  a  place  where  domestic  life  is  conven 
ient  and  enjoyable;  where  the  social  life  is  broad  and 
hospitable,  where  vice  is  in  restraint;  where  moral 
and  physical  sanitation  have  due  provision,  where 
charity  is  broad  and  wise  —  a  city  to  which  men  will 
grow  attached,  to  which  they  will  come  back. 

Gentlemen,  you  may  add  these  things  to  the  trade 
statistics  of  Indianapolis.  A  city  offering  the  most 
alluring  inducements  to  commerce  and  production,  it 
is  pre-eminently  a  city  of  homes. 


"ABRAHAM  LINCOLN" 

February  12,  1898 

AT  THE  LINCOLN  DAY  BANQUET  OF  THE  MARQUETTE 
CLUB,    CHICAGO 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  GENTLEMEN — A  few  weeks 
ago,  when  the  pressure  of  other  engagements  made 
it  apparent  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to 
make  any  preparation  suitable  to  the  dignity  of  this 
occasion,  I  withdrew  a  previous  acceptance  of  the 
invitation  of  the  club.  But  the  committee,  with  quite 
an  undue  sense  of  the  importance  of  my  presence, 
arranged  to  facilitate  my  coming  and  going,  and 
promised  for  themselves,  and  for  you,  so  far  as  they 
were  able,  if  I  would  come,  to  be  content  with  but 
a  few  words  from  me  to-night. 

The  observance  of  the  birthday  of  Abraham 
Lincoln,  which  has  become  now  so  widely  estab 
lished,  either  by  public  law  or  by  general  custom, 
will  more  and  more  force  the  orators  of  these  oc 
casions  to  depart  from  the  line  of  biography  and 
incident  and  eulogy  and  to  assume  the  duties  of  ap 
plying  to  pending  public  questions  the  principles  illus- 

472 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN  473 

trated  in  the  life  and  taught  in  the  public  utterances 
of  the  man  whose  birth  we  commemorate. 

And,  after  all,  we  may  be  sure  that  that  great  sim 
ple-hearted  patriot  would  have  wished  it  so.  Flat 
tery  did  not  soothe  the  living  ear  of  Lincoln.  He 
was  not  unappreciative  of  friendship,  not  without  am 
bition  to  be  esteemed,  but  the  overmastering  and  dom 
inant  thought  of  his  life  was  to  be  useful  to  his  coun 
try  and  to  his  countrymen. 

On  his  way  to  take  up  the  already  stupendous  work 
of  the  presidency,  he  spent  a  night  at  Indianapolis. 
The  arrival  of  his  train  was  greeted  by  many  thou 
sands  of  those  who  had  supported  his  candidacy. 
They  welcomed  him  with  huzzas,  as  if  they  would 
give  him  token  of  their  purpose  to  stand  by  the  re 
sults  declared  at  the  polls.  Yet  it  seemed  to  me  hardly 
to  be  a  glad  crowd,  and  he  not  to  be  a  glad  man. 
There  was  no  sense  of  culpability  either  in  their 
hearts  or  in  his;  no  faltering;  no  disposition  to  turn 
back,  but  the  hour  was  shadowed  with  forebodings. 

Men  did  not  shrink,  but  there  was  that  vague  sense 
of  apprehension,  that  unlocated  expectancy  of  evil, 
which  fills  the  air  and  disturbs  the  beasts  of  the  field 
when  the  unclouded  sun  is  eclipsed.  When  the  col 
umn  is  once  started  in  the  charge  there  are  cheers, 
but  there  is  a  moment  when,  standing  at  attention, 
silence  is  king. 

Before  us  stood  our  chosen  leader,  the  man  who 
was  to  be  our  pilot  through  seas  more  stormy  and 


474  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

through  channels  more  perilous  than  ever  the  old 
ship  went  before.  He  had  piloted  the  lumbering  flat- 
boat  on  our  western  streams,  but  he  was  now  to 
take  the  helm  of  the  great  ship.  His  experience  in 
public  office  had  been  brief,  and  not  conspicuous.  He 
had  no  general  acquaintance  with  the  people  of  the 
whole  country.  His  large  angular  frame  and  face, 
his  broad  humor,  his  homely  illustrations  and  simple 
ways,  seemed  to  very  many  of  his  fellow-country 
men  to  portray  a  man  and  a  mind  that,  while  acute 
and  powerful,  had  not  that  nice  balance  and  touch 
of  statecraft  that  the  perilous  way  before  us  demand 
ed.  No  college  of  arts  had  opened  to  his  struggling 
youth ;  he  had  been  born  in  a  cabin  and  reared  among 
the  unlettered.  He  was  a  rail-splitter,  a  flatboatman, 
a  country  lawyer. 

Yet  in  all  these  conditions  and  associations  he  was 
a  leader — at  the  railsplitting,  in  the  rapids,  at  the 
bar,  in  story-telling.  He  had  a  comparatively  small 
body  of  admiring  and  attached  friends.  He  had  re 
vealed  himself  in  his  debate  with  Douglas  and  in  his 
New  York  speech  as  a  man  most  familiar  with  Amer 
ican  politics  and  a  profound  student  of  our  institu 
tions,  but  above  all  as  a. man  of  conscience — most 
kind  in  speech,  and  most  placid  in  demeanor,  yet 
disturbing  the  public  peace  by  his  insistence  that 
those  theories  of  human  rights  which  we  had  all  so 
much  applauded  in  theory  should  be  made  practical. 

In  the  broad  common-sense  way  in  which  he  did 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN  475 

small  things  he  was  larger  than  any  situation  in 
which  life  had  placed  him.  Europe  did  not  know 
him.  To  the  South  and  to  many  in  the  Northern 
states  he  was  an  uncouth  jester,  an  ambitious  up 
start,  a  reckless  disturber.  He  was  hated  by  the 
South,  not  only  for  his  principles,  but  for  himself. 
The  son  of  the  cavalier,  the  man  who  felt  toil  to  be 
a  stain,  despised  this  son  of  the  people,  this  child 
of  toil.  He  was  going  to  Washington  to  meet  mis 
givings  in  his  own  party,  and  to  confront  the  fiercest, 
most  implacable  and  powerful  rebellion  of  which 
history  gives  us  an  example.  Personal  dangers  at 
tended  his  journey.  The  course  before  him  was 
lighted  only  by  the  lamp  of  duty ;  outside  its  radiance 
all  was  dark. 

He  seemed  to  me  to  be  conscious  of  all  this,  to 
be  weighted  by  it,  but  so  strong  was  his  sense  of 
duty,  so  courageous  his  heart,  so  sure  was  he  of  his 
own  high  purposes  and  motives  and  of  the  favor  of 
God  for  himself  and  his  people,  that  he  moved  for 
ward  calmly  to  his  appointed  work;  not  with  show 
and  brag,  neither  with  shrinking.  He  was  yet  in 
a  large  measure  to  win  the  confidence  of  men  in  his 
capacity,  when  the  occasion  was  so  exigent  as  to 
seem  to  call  for  one  who  had  already  won  it. 

As  I  have  said  at  another  time,  the  selection  ©f 
Mr.  Seward  for  secretary  of  state  was  a  brave  act, 
because  Mr.  Lincoln  could  not  fail  to  know  that  for 
a  time  Mr.  Seward  would  overshadow  him  in  the 


4/6  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

popular  estimation,  and  a  wise  one,  because  Mr. 
Seward  was  in  the  highest  degree  qualified  for  the 
great  and  delicate  duties  of  the  office.  A  man  who 
is  endowed  for  the  presidency  will  know  how  to  be 
president  in  fact  as  well  as  in  name,  without  any 
fussy  self-assertion. 

He  was  distinguished  from  the  abolition  leaders 
by  the  fairness  and  kindliness  with  which  he  judged 
the  South  and  the  slaveholder.  He  was  opposed  to 
human  slavery,  not  because  some  masters  were 
cruel,  but  upon  reasons  that  kindness  to  the  slave  did 
not  answer.  "All  men"  included  the  black  man. 
Liberty  is  the  law  of  nature.  The  human  enactment 
can  not  pass  the  limits  of  the  state;  God's  law  em 
braces  creation. 

Mr.  Lincoln  had  faith  in  time,  and  time  has  jus 
tified  his  faith.  If  the  panorama  of  the  years  from 
'6 1  to  '65  could  have  been  unrolled  before  the  eyes 
of  his  countrymen  would  they  have  said,  would  he 
have  said,  that  he  was  adequate  for  the  great  oc 
casion?  And  yet  as  we  look  back  over  the  story 
of  the  civil  war  he  is  revealed  to  us  standing  above 
all  men  of  that  epoch  in  his  capacity  and  adapta 
tion  to  the  duties  of  the  presidency. 

It  does  not  seem  to  be  God's  way  to  give  men 
preparation  and  fitness  and  to  reveal  them  until  the 
hour  strikes.  Men  must  rise  to  the  situation.  The 
storage  batteries  that  are  to  furnish  the  energy  for 


ABRAHAM    LINCOLN  477 

these  great  occasions  God  does  not  connect  until  the 
occasion  comes. 

The  civil  war  called  for  a  president  who  had 
faith  in  time,  for  his  country  as  well  as  for  him 
self;  who  could  endure  the  impatience  of  others  and 
bide  his  time.  A  man  who  could  by  a  strong  but 
restrained  diplomatic  correspondence  hold  off  for 
eign  intermeddlers  and  at  the  same  time  lay  the  sure 
basis  for  the  Geneva  award,  a  man  who  could  in  all 
his  public  utterances,  while  maintaining  the  author 
ity  of  the  law  and  the  just  rights  of  the  national  gov 
ernment,  breathe  an  undertone  of  yearning  for  the 
misguided  and  the  rebellious;  a  man  who  could  hold 
the  war  and  the  policy  of  the  government  to  its  orig 
inal  purpose — the  restoration  of  the  states  without 
the  destruction  of  slavery — until  public  sentiment 
was  ready  to  support  a  proclamation  of  emancipa 
tion;  a  man  who  could  win  and  hold  the  love  of  the 
soldier  and  of  the  masses  of  the  people;  a  man  who 
could  be  just  without  pleasure  in  the  severities  of 
justice,  who  loved  to  forgive  and  pardon. 

Mr.  Lincoln  loved  the  "plain  people,"  out  of  whose 
ranks  he  came,  but  not  with  a  class  love.  He  never 
pandered  to  ignorance  or  sought  applause  by  appeals 
to  prejudice.  The  equality  of  men  in  rights  and  bur 
dens,  justice  to  all,  a  government  by  all  the  people, 
for  all  the  people,  was  his  thought — no  favoritism 
in  enactment  or  administration — the  general  good. 


VIEWS  OF  AN  EX-PRESIDENT 

He  had  the  love  of  the  masses  and  he  won  it 
fairly,  not  by  art  or  trick.  He  could,  therefore,  ad 
monish  and  restrain  with  authority.  He  was  a  man 
who  could  speak  to  all  men  and  be  heard.  Would 
there  were  more  such!  There  is  great  need  of  men 
now  who  can  be  heard,  both  in  the  directors'  meet 
ing  and  in  the  labor  assembly. 

Qualities  of  heart  and  mind  combined  to  make 
a  man  who  has  won  the  love  of  mankind.  He  is  be 
loved.  He  stands  like  a  great  lighthouse  to  show 
the  way  of  duty  to  all  his  countrymen  and  to  send 
afar  a  beam  of  courage  to  those  who  beat  against 
the  winds.  We  do  him  reverence.  We  bless  to 
night  the  memory  of  Lincoln. 


AT  THE  BANQUET  OF  THE  UNION  LEAGUE 
CLUB,  CHICAGO 

February  22,  1898 

MR.  PRESIDENT  AND  GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  UNION 
LEAGUE  CLUB  OF  CHICAGO — As  much  as  I  have  talked, 
I  do  not  love  it,  and  if  there  was  ever  a  time  in  my  life 
when  I  talked  for  talk's  sake  I  have  left  that  time 
behind  me.  Whatever  strength  I  have  to  talk  which 
the  excessive,  superabundant  and  overflowing  kind 
ness  of  my  fellow-citizens  has  given  me,  I  feel  un 
der  a  conscientious  obligation  to  use  for  my  country. 
The  work  which  this  club  has  undertaken  and  from 
year  to  year  so  successfully  executed  is  worthy  of 
wide  imitation.  We  are  living  in  an  age  when  great 
things  crowd  upon  each  other,  when  men's  minds 
and  hearts  are  full  of  those  interests  which  pertain 
to  themselves  and  their  families.  The  struggle  of 
life,  and  especially  of  business  life,  seems  to  be  get 
ting  more  and  more  intense  with  every  year,  and  it 
is  a  worthy  example  which  this  club  has  set  to  these 
great  business  organizations  throughout  the  country, 
to  forget  for  this  day  all  the  rush  and  roar  of  pomp, 

479 


VIEWS  OF  AN  EX-PRESIDENT 

to  close  these  great  marts  of  trade,  and  to  torn  their 
thoughts  and  to  engage  the  thought  of  die  children 
with  those  things  that  pertain  to  our  country. 

My  fellow-citizens,  we  have  a  country  not  simply 
under  a  bond  of  constitution  that  demands  die  fealty 
of  every  man,  but  we  have  much  more — a  country 
to  which  the  hearts  of  all  the  people  of  die  states 
are  given. 

We  need  to  cultivate  the  sentiment  of  public  duty, 
and  in  die  life  of  Washington  we  have  a  record  of 
a  life  that  was  devoted  to  it  We  too  much  forget 
that  we  owe  a  public  debt  that  we  may  not  cast  off. 
But,  my  countrymen,  if  we  are  to  have  peaceful 
times  and  prosperous  times,  if  this  government  is 
not  to  become  a  prey  to  corruption,  if  it  is  not  to  un 
settle  from  those  great  foundations  on  which  our 
fathers  placed  it,  there  must  be  watchfulness  and  ef 
fort  on  the  part  of  all  our  citizens.  You  have  under 
taken  *  good  work  in  calling  the  attention  of  die 
children  to  the  lessons  of  Washington's  life.  We  are 
a  great  people  in  power.  Let  us  be  great  in  person, 
great  in  integrity  of  personal  life,  in  that  integrity 
of  patriotism  which  makes  men  ready  not  only  in 
time  of  war,  when  the  drum-beat  rouses  our  hearts 
to  an  impulse  of  patriotism  to  rush  forward  to 
death,  but  steadfast  defenders  in  times  of  peace. 

We  stand  now  in  the  awful  shadow  of  one  of  the 
most  tragic  events  that  has  ever  happened  in  our  his 
tory,  and  yet  we  stand  with  die  poise,  with  die  self- 


AT  THE  UNION  LEAGUE  CLUB  .jSt 

possession  of  a  peoplo  \\ho  understand  their  might 

and   can    abide    the   development    oi    time.      \\Y    .ue 

not  a  hyMeiu-.d  luopU  We  can  wait,  and  we  will 
know  our  dnt\  \\IUMI  it  shall  be  revealed.  We  can 
iiiuli-iM.mil  that  in  a  time  like  this  there  are  grave 

ie-ponsihilities   de\o!\mi;    upon    the    president    ol    the 

United  States,  single  responsihihm  th.it  lie  may  not 
ill \iile  with  any  man.  Let  us  stand  about  him, 

strengthening    him    in    the    e.ilm    assurance    th.it    this 

great  country  ilesires  only  what  is  right  and  can  wait 
until  the  facts  are  known  before  it  issues  its  procla 
mation. 

I    thank    yOU    for    the    vu.il     coidialily     \\huh    yon 

have  ^lun\n  me  to-day.    Twice  \\nhm  a  week  1  h.i\e 

spoken  in  ChieaiM>.      \  .MI  h.ue  si>  «>!'UMI  asked  me  here 

that  I  thought  to  crowd  my  speeches  a  little  so  that 
I  might  satiate  you.  I  thank  you  for  yom  mo  t 
kindly  welcome,  and  in  what  I  have  said  to-day  I 

ha\e   ende.iuued    to    present    to    \<m    uh.it    seemed    t»> 

bo  the  duties  of  a  true,  conscientious  citizenship 


PRESENTATION  OF  FLAG  TO  BATTERY  A 

May  3,  1898 
AT    CAMP    MOUNT,    INDIANAPOLIS 

CAPTAIN  CURTIS,  MEN  OF  BATTERY  A,  INDIANA 
NATIONAL  GUARD — soon  to  have  another  designation 
as  a  battery  of  the  army  of  the  United  States. 

Yesterday  some  of  my  young  lady  friends  called 
upon  me  and  asked  me  to  say  a  few  words  in 
connection  with  the  presentation  to  this  battery  of 
the  flag  which  they  had  prepared.  My  engagements 
are  such  that  I  have  been  negativing  all  invitations 
to  make  public  addresses,  and  I  might  have  denied 
the  ladies — though  my  desire  to  please  them  was 
very  strong — but  I  could  not  deny  myself  the  grati 
fication  of  a  word  of  greeting,  of  commendation,  and 
a  godspeed  to  you  and  to  all  the  brave  young  fel 
lows  who  have  so  promptly  answered  our  country's 
call  to  war.  The  Indianapolis  Light  Artillery  has 
won  the  highest  laurels  as  a  militia  organization.  You 
have  vanquished  all  competitors,  you  have  won  fame 
for  the  state.  As  Indianians  we  are  proud  of  you. 
You  will  take  the  field  under  the  very  best  auspices. 

482 


PRESENTATION   OF   THE    FLAG  483 

Your  officers  and  men  have  attained  a  high  efficiency 
in  drill.  You  have  already  a  high  esprit  de  corps. 
You  have  been  first  in  peace.  You  must  not,  can 
not,  will  not,  be  second  in  war.  You  have  attained 
great  efficiency  in  dismounting  your  own  guns,  and 
now  you  are  to  try  what  you  can  do  in  dismount 
ing  the  enemy's  guns. 

You  have,  as  a  trained  and  organized  militia,  a 
great  advantage  over  the  volunteers  of  1861-62.  Our 
foes  are  not,  thank  God,  those  of  our  own  house 
hold.  That  was  war  for  the  life  of  the  Union;  this 
a  war  for  humanity.  That  for  ourselves;  this  for 
the  oppressed  of  another  race.  We  could  not  escape 
this  conflict.  Spanish  rule  has  become  effete.  We 
dare  not  say  that  we  have  God's  commission  to  de 
liver  the  oppressed  the  world  around.  To  the  dis 
tant  Armenians  we  could  send  only  the  succor  of  a 
faith  that  overcomes  death,  and  the  alleviations  which 
the  nurse  and  the  commissary  can  give.  But  the  op 
pressed  Cubans  and  their  starving  women  and  chil 
dren  are  knocking  at  our  doors;  their  cries  pene 
trate  our  slumbers.  They  are  closely  within  what 
we  have  defined  to  be  the  sphere  of  American  influ 
ence.  We  have  said:  "Look  to  us,  not  to  Europe/' 
and  we  can  not  shirk  the  responsibility  and  the  dan 
gers  of  this  old  and  settled  American  policy.  We 
have,  as  a  nation,  toward  Cuba  the  same  high  com 
mission  which  every  brave-hearted  man  has  to 
strike  down  the  ruffian  who,  in  his  presence,  beats 


484  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

a  woman  or  a  child  and  will  not  desist.  For  what, 
if  not  for  this,  does  God  make  a  man  or  a  nation 
strong? 

We  have  disclaimed  in  the  face  of  the  nations 
of  Europe,  who  are  now  dividing  continents  much 
as  hungry  boys  might  divide  a  melon,  that  we  have 
a  purpose  to  seize  and  appropriate  Cuba.  We  go  to 
set  her  free;  to  give  to  her  own  people  that  which 
we  have  claimed  and  established  for  ourselves — the 
right  to  set  up  and  maintain  a  government  suitable 
to  their  own  necessities,  controlled  by  their  own  suf 
frages.  We  covet  from  her,  as  from  all  the  nations 
of  America,  only  the  offices  of  good  neighbors  and 
the  fair  and  natural  exchange  of  commerce.  We  do 
hot  deny  dominion  to  Europe  in  order  to  seize  it  for 
ourselves.  But  we  may  justly,  I  think,  in  the  West 
Indies,  and  in  the  far  Eastern  sea,  where  our  gal 
lant  navy  has  won  so  splendid  a  victory,  hold  some 
little  unpeopled  harbors  where  our  cruising  warships 
may  take  coal  and  find  a  refuge  when  in  stress. 

I  do  not  doubt  that  speedily — though  no  man 
can  set  the  times  which  God  plans — that  this  great 
work  to  which  the  United  States  has  addressed  itself 
will  be  completely  and  permanently  accomplished.  I 
congratulate  you,  my  young  friends,  that  you  are  to 
have  a  part  in  it.  I  challenge  your  interest  and  your 
duty,  that  you  quit  yourselves  like  men;  that  you 
enter  upon  your  duties  with  the  seriousness  and  sense 
of  obligation,  which  will  make  you  efficient  and  vie- 


PRESENTATION   OF   THE   FLAG  485 

torious  in  your  campaign.  Let  us  not  forget  that  there 
is  in  all  this  a  moral  impulse,  and  that  the  soldier 
who  goes  from  this  high  impulse  of  moral  courage 
is  the  best  soldier  after  all. 

Those  women  send  you  to  the  succor  of  the  starv 
ing  and  oppressed  women  of  Cuba.  They  can  not 
carry  the  flag  into  battle,  but  they  bring  it  to  you 
who  can.  And  to  its  significance  and  glory  as  the 
national  emblem  they  add  the  beauty  of  their  love 
and  their  charge  that  you  bear  it  in  honor  and  bring 
it  home  in  triumph. 


ADDRESS  AS  GUEST  OF  HONOR  AT  THE 

BANQUET  OF  THE  SOCIETY  OK  THE 

CINCINNATI 

At  Hathaway  Inn,  Asbury  Park,  New  Jersey,  July  4, 1898 

I  recall  with  pride  that  this  great  natal  day  of  our 
independence  is  made  memorable  by  the  fall  of  Vicks- 
burg  and  now  again  by  the  capture  of  the  first  Spanish 
stronghold  in  Cuba.  I  am  one  of  those  who  did  not 
see  how  war  could  be  avoided.  When  is  it  possible 
for  an  American  to  see  a  woman  beaten  by  a  brute 
and  not  raise  a  punishing  arm?  When  200,000  men 
and  women  are  permitted  to  starve  by  the  callous  cru 
elty  of  a  barbarous  nation,  then  I  believe  the  power 
of  that  nation  must  be  effaced  from  the  islands  they 
have  so  abused. 

Our  grievances  in  1776  pale  by  the  side  of  the 
barbarous  cruelties  practiced  by  Spain.  Let  the  Ger 
mans  and  Frenchmen  say  what  they  will,  this  is  no 
war  of  conquest,  but  a  war  for  humanity.  Europe 
feels  as  she  never  felt  before  for  America.  Dewey's 

486 


THE   SOCIETY   OF   THE    CINCINNATI  487 

first  glorious  achievement  at  Manila  set  the  pace  and 
has  made  it  impossible  that  any  vessel  of  our  navy 
or  any  regiment  of  our  army  should  ever  falter  in 
the  face  of  the  enemy. 

It  is  time  for  Europe  to  understand  that  the 
American  navy  is  the  match  for  any  navy  in  the 
world.  The  sneers  over  there  are  forced,  and  now 
we  are  glad  to  know  that  our  land  forces,  who  do 
not  fight  at  3,000  yards,  but  look  into  the  very  eye 
of  the  adversary,  have  shown  around  the  hills  of 
Santiago  that  they  keep  pace  with  the  gallant  navy. 

In  the  West  an  impression  prevails  that  our  New 
York  and  Eastern  millionaires  are  a  dilly  dally,  washy 
kind  of  a  set.  But  we  have  seen  the  cowboy  and  the 
millionaire  dash  up  the  bloody  slopes  side  by  side. 
We  have  discovered  that  wealth  does  not  necessarily 
enfeeble  or  sap  the  patriotism  of  the  American  heart. 
Then  again  we  have  witnessed  the  boys  who 
wore  the  gray  in  1861  fighting  in  the  ranks  with  the 
boys  who  wore  the  blue.  I  have  always  felt  that 
when  Texas  charged  with  Massachusetts  and  New 
Jersey  the  charge  would  be  invincible. 

And  now  we  have  another  band  of  hero  dead. 
These  fallen  soldiers  ennoble  a  nation  more  than  the 
achievements  of  commerce.  Believe  me,  gentlemen, 
out  of  this  war  will  come  increased  prosperity  and 
a  more  united  people,  possessed  of  a  mighty  power 
that  will  insure  protection  and  safety  for  all  time 
to  come. 


IN  BEHALF  OF  THE  RED  CROSS  SOCIETY 

Long  Branch,  New  Jersey,  July  5,  1898 

We  had  heard,  before  the  declaration  of  war,  of 
the  barbarities  that  were  being  perpetrated  in  Cuba. 
They  seemed  to  pass  belief.  That  quiet  recital  made 
by  Senator  Proctor,  of  Vermont,  in  the  United  States 
senate,  aroused  the  nation. 

I  do  not  think  there  has  been  made  in  any  legis 
lative  assembly  in  the  world  in  fifty  years  a  speech 
that  so,  powerfully  affected  the  public  sentiment  as 
that.  And  yet  there  was  not  a  lurid  adjective  in 
the  speech.  It  was  a  restrained  description  of  the 
barbarities  practiced  chiefly  upon  women  and  children 
by  the  Spanish  rulers  in  Cuba.  Senator  Proctor  said 
to  me  in  conversation  in  New  York:  "I  could  not 
in  the  senate  recite  the  worst  of  the  atrocities  of 
which  I  found  evidence  in  Cuba.  The  treatment  of 
the  women  among  the  reconcentrados  was  too  brutal 
to  be  spoken  of  in  public." 

Could  we  stand  by  and  not  correct  those  who 
could  be  capable  of  perpetrating  them?  It  seemed 
to  me  not.  The  cries  of  these  starving  women  and 

488 


THE   RED    CROSS   SOCIETY  489 

children  penetrated  our  bed  chambers  and  came  to  us 
like  ghastly  visions  of  the  night,  and  for  one  I  could 
not  understand  why  God  had  made  this  nation  great 
and  strong  if  it  was  not  for  an  hour  and  a  work 
like  that.  We  have  said  to  the  whole  world  this 
is  the  exclusive  sphere  of  American  influence,  and 
by  that  declaration  we  proclaimed  our  duty  to  re 
press  such  atrocities  as  were  being  perpetrated  in 
Cuba. 

The  war  is  waged  on  Red  Cross  lines,  for  hu 
manity,  for  the  relief  and  succor  of  the  starving  and 
the  helpless.  And  how  magnificently  it  has  been 
waged!  Can  human  sympathy  be  too  large,  can  wo 
men's  love  be  too  strong  for  those  brave  fellows  of 
our  army  and  navy  who  have  added  new  glory  to 
the  standard  of  the  nation  and  have  greatly  lifted 
it  in  the  respect  of  those  countries  of  Europe  that 
respect  only  war  power? 

The  comfort  of  a  sheeted  bed  and  what  your 
Western  boys  used  to  call  a  'boiled  shirt'  is  inde 
scribable  to  those  who  have  never  missed  the  com 
forts  of  their  homes,  and  when  there  is  added  the 
gentle  ministration  of  women,  a  vision  of  the  open 
door  of  heaven  seems  to  come  to  fever-stricken, 
wounded  men. 


AT  THE  BANQUET  OF  THE  AMERICAN 

CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE, 

PARIS,  FRANCE 

July  4, 1899 

The  observance  of  the  anniversary  of  the  Ameri 
can  declaration  of  independence  in  France  has  a  pe 
culiar  interest  to  me.  We  observe  the  great  event 
— not  in  the  land  immediately  affected  by  it,  the  dear 
homeland — but  in  the  land  of  Lafayette,  the  land 
whose  sympathetic  interest  and  whose  large  trust  in 
a  poor  and  struggling  people  did  so  much  to  con 
vert  the  declared  right  to  be  free  into  the  fact  of 
freedom.  We  may  believe — but  we  can  not  affirm 
it — that  in  the  longer  end  we  alone  might  have  won 
our  freedom.  In  an  extremity  that  seemed  to  make' 
the  result  of  our  appeal  to  France  determinative,  she 
gave  us  succor — of  money  to  replenish  an  exhausted 
treasury,  of  gallant  men  to  fill  our  depleted  ranks, 
of  ships  to  break  harassing  blockades,  and  to  pro 
tect  our  ravaged  coasts.  Mr.  President,  the  patri 
otic  sire  has  handed  down  to  his  patriotic  sons  this 
story  of  a  generous  intervention.  It  is  not  a  forgot- 

490 


AMERICAN    CHAMBER   OF    COMMERCE  49 1 

ten  episode — it  is  told  every  year  in  our  public 
schools  to  hundreds  of  thousands  of  our  American 
youth.  We  have  grown  strong,  but  we  have  not 
ceased  to  be  grateful. 

When  America  forgets  her  debt  to  France  she 
will  be  unworthy  and  incapable  of  an  international 
friendship.  Mr.  President,  we  have  other  friends, 
but  we  have  none  whose  friendship  involves  or  im 
plies  enmity  to  France.  We  are  pleased  when  she 
is  prosperous  and  grieved  when  she  is  troubled. 

France  has  quite  naturally  adopted  for  herself  the 
republican  form  of  government  which  she  helped 
us  to  establish — and  we  believe  her  people  have  given 
to  their  civil  institutions  their  hearty  and  enduring 
allegiance.  That,  Mr.  President,  is  in  my  opinion 
the  test — a  constitution,  a  form  of  government,  a 
body  of  civil  institutions,  to  which  the  love  and  al 
legiance  of  the  people  are  given.  Men  may  come 
and  men  may  go,  but  the  government  endures.  The 
course  of  events,  the  public  thought  may  be  influ 
enced  by  great  men,  but  the  anchor  holds — they  may 
not  supplant  the  constitution.  The  man  on  horse 
back,  the  man  with  a  cockade,  is  not  to  be  feared — 
the  love  of  the  people  is  set  upon  something  that  en 
dures.  This,  Mr.  President,  is  the  security  of  the 
United  States,  and  will  be  the  security  of  every  free 
people  that  cultivates  it. 

Our  public  men,  our  political  parties,  often  divide 
upon  questions  affecting  the  construction  of  our 


492  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

written  constitution;  but  with  all  our  varying 
thoughts  of  what  it  is  in  this  particular  or  in  that, 
we  give  our  allegiance  to  it,  and  not  to  our  leaders. 
Fortunately  for  our  peace,  the  American  constitu 
tion  provides  a  tribunal  for  the  final  and  unappeal 
able  decision  of  all  questions  affecting  the  construc 
tion  of  the  constitution,  and,  at  the  same  time,  opens 
a  way  by  which  it  may  be  made  to  express  the  pop 
ular  thought,  but  one  not  so  easy  as  to  give  way  to 
hasty  and  unconsidered  popular  feeling. 

Washington  spoke  of  the  supreme  court,  as  organ 
ized  under  our  constitution,  at  one  time  as  the  key 
stone  of  our  federal  arch,  and  at  another  as  the  great 
pillar  that  bears  up  the  fabric  of  our  civil  institu 
tions.  Its  decisions  have  now  and  then  evoked  pro 
tests  from  the  people,  and  these — in  at  least  one  in 
stance — obtained  that  wide  concurrence  of  the  states 
which  was  necessary  to  make  the  constitution  con 
form  in  that  particular  to  the  will  of  the  people. 
But,  speaking  broadly,  this  great  tribunal  has  even 
more  than  realized  Washington's  high  conception  of 
its  value.  A  tribunal  whose  decision  in  all  matters 
between  individuals,  or  between  individuals  and  the 
state,  is  accepted,  if  not  with  full  assent,  at  least  with 
loyal  acquiescence,  is  essential  to  social  and  public 
tranquillity. 

The  United  States  is  most  favorably  situated  for 
the  cultivation  of  peaceful  relations  with  other  na 
tions.  In  the  affairs  of  nations  beyond  seas,  no 


AMERICAN    CHAMBER   OF    COMMERCE  493 

question  of  the  balance  of  power  has  ever  disturbed 
us.  Our  neighbors  could  not  contest  our  supremacy, 
but  we  will  never  use  our  power  to  their  dis 
advantage. 

If  the  thought  of  any  general  scheme  of  coloni 
zation  could  now  enter  the  mind  of  any  American 
statesman,  it  would  surely  be  corrected  by  the  man 
ifest  fact  that  the  islands  and  the  continents  have 
already  been  divided.  The  United  States  is  not,  I 
am  sure,  ambitious  to  take  the  crumbs  that  remain. 
Her  policy  always  has  been,  and  I  am  sure  we  will 
not  depart  from  it,  to  preserve  the  most  friendly 
relations  with  all  the  nations  of  the  world,  and  to 
extend  her  commerce,  not  by  force  of  arms,  but  by 
the  enticements  and  advantages  of  her  superior  prod 
ucts.  She  has  never  failed,  whether  in  Greece,  in 
Armenia,  or  in  South  America,  to  let  it  be  known 
that  she  reprobated  cruelty  and  persecution,  but  she 
has  not  felt  that  she  had  a  commission  to  police  the 
world. 

She  would  gladly  have  welcomed  the  settlement  of 
the  Cuban  question  by  the  establishment  of  a  hu 
mane,  just  and  liberal  government  of  that  island  un 
der  Spain.  It  was  only  because  she  believed  that 
the  true  purposes  of  government,  the  ends  for  which 
it  is  constituted,  had  been  lost  sight  of  there,  and 
because  Cuba  was  almost  in  sight  of  her  shores,  and 
the  cries  of  her  people  entered  into  her  sleep,  that 
she  intervened.  The  American  people  will  rejoice 


494  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

if  the  Cubans  shall  establish  a  free,  stable,  independ 
ent  government.  We  have  incurred  responsibilities 
there  and  in  the  Philippines,  and  we  will  not  fail  to 
discharge  them — at  any  cost. 

It  is  too  late  to  debate  the  question  whether  it 
might  not  have  been  wiser  to  have  made  our  cam 
paign  in  the  Philippines  purely  a  naval  campaign,  or 
the  other  question  whether  destiny  or  our  own  choice 
involved  us  there.  We  have  assumed  responsibili 
ties  toward  the  peaceable  people  there,  toward  Spain 
and  toward  the  world,  and  we  must  establish  order 
as  a  necessary  preliminary  to  the  consideration  of 
any  question  as  to  the  ultimate  destiny  or  disposi 
tion  of  the  archipelago. 

We  are  proud  of  the  achievements  of  our  army 
and  navy,  and  are  glad  if  European  misapprehen 
sion  as  to  our  naval  construction  and  seamanship 
is  removed.  We  are  glad  if  a  truer  appreciation  of 
the  vast  war  resources  of  the  United  States  prevails, 
glad  only  because  it  gives  security  in  the  hemisphere 
in  which  we  are  placed,  not  because  it  is  a  threat  to 
Europe. 

American  diplomacy  has  been,  I  think,  peculiarly 
sentimental.  Our  moral  intervention  for  the  op 
pressed  and  our  later  intervention  by  arms  have  been 
in  the  interest  of  liberty,  not  of  gain. 

It  will  not  be  thought  unnatural,  in  spite  of  all 
past  differences  and  strifes,  if  a  peculiar  friendliness 


AMERICAN  CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE         495 

should  be  felt  by  us  for  those  of  our  language  and 
race  across  the  channel;  but  no  one  has  suggested, 
Mr.  President,  that  by  reason  of  this  natural  and 
influential  fact  and  motive,  either  Great  Britain  or 
the  United  States  should  assume  all  the  animosities 
and  quarrels  of  the  other.  The  contingency  of  a  gen 
eral  combination  of  all  the  powers  against  one  or 
the  other  of  these  nations,  threatening  its  destruction, 
need  not  be  taken  much  account  of  until  it  arises. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  friendship  of  the  United 
States  for  Great  Britain  is  not  enmity  to  the  world. 
A  high  sense  of  what  is  right  and  honorable,  a  due 
sense  of  obligation,  fairness  in  our  commercial  in 
tercourse,  and  friendliness  in  our  personal  inter 
course,  toward  all  who  will  allow  us  to  be  friendly, 
are,  I  think,  the  American  thought  and  policy. 

Mr.  President,  the  United  States  now  more  than 
ever  sympathizes  with  every  practicable  suggestion 
and  movement  that  tends  to  diminish  the  influence 
of  arms  in  the  determination  of  international  ques 
tions.  Arbitration  has  halted  because  of  the  diffi 
culty  there  has  been  in  finding  a  purely  judicial 
tribunal,  one  that  would  consider  international  ques 
tions  with  the  same  indifference  to  the  parties  and 
the  same  impartiality  of  judgment  which  character 
ize  our  courts  in  the  trial  of  questions  between  in 
dividuals.  When  such  a  tribunal  can  be  attained 
and  the  faith  of  the  nations  in  the  fact  of  its  attain- 


496  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

merit  confirmed,  disarmament  will  be  nearer  and  the 
grievous  burdens  which  the  maintenance  of  armies 
imposes  upon  industry  will  be  lifted.  America  will 
hail  the  glad  day. 


AT  THE  ECUMENICAL  MISSIONARY  CON 
FERENCE 

OPENING  ADDRESS   AS   HONORARY   CHAIRMAN 
Carnegie  Hal,  New  York,  April  19,  1900 

I  count  it  a  great  honor — a  call  to  preside  over 
the  deliberations  of  this  great  body.  It  is  to  asso 
ciate  oneself  with  the  most  influential  and  enduring 
work  that  is  being  done  in  this  day  of  great  enter 
prises. 

My  assignment  is  to  the  chair — not  to  the  speaker's 
desk.  The  careful  and  comprehensive  program  that 
has  been  prepared  for  the  convention  will,  in  its  or 
derly  development,  bring  before  you  the  whole  sub 
ject  of  foreign  missions  in  all  its  aspects.  Gentle 
men  whose  learning  and  special  experiences  will 
give  not  only  interest  but  authority  to  their  ad 
dresses,  will  discuss  assigned  topics. 

We  shall  have  the  arithmetic  of  missions,  the  mus 
ter  rolls,  the  book  increase,  the  paymasters'  accounts; 
some  will  need  these. 

We  shall  have  before  us  some  veterans  from  the 
mission  outposts — men  and  women  who  have  exhibit- 

497 


498  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

ed  in  their  work  an  unsurpassed  steadfastness  and 
heroism,  whose  courage  has  been  subjected  to  the 
strain  of  time.  They  have  been  beleaguered;  they 
have  known  the  weariness  of  those  who  look  for  suc 
cor.  From  them  we  shall  hear  what  the  gospel  has 
done  for  tribes  and  lands;  and,  best  of  all,  what 
it  has  done  for  the  individual  man  and  woman. 
These  reports  will  be  the  consolidated  reports  of  the 
whole  mission  work  of  all  the  detachments  of  the 
evangelical  protestant  army. 

Hours  for  daily  devotional  exercises  are  assigned. 
The  greatest  need  of  the  foreign  field  is  a  revived, 
reconsecrated  and  unified  home  church.  And  this 
conference  will  be  fruitful  and  successful  in  propor 
tion  as  it  promotes  those  ends.  There  will  be,  I 
hope,  much  prayer  for  an  outpouring  of  God's  spirit. 

The  gigantic  engines  that  are  driving  forward  a 
material  development  are  being  speeded  as  never  be 
fore.  The  din  of  the  hammer  and  the  axe,  and  the 
hum  of  wheels,  have  penetrated  the  abodes  of  soli 
tude — the  world  has  now  few  quiet  places.  Life  is 
strenuous — the  boy  is  started  in  his  school  upon  the 
run,  and  the  pace  is  not  often  slackened  until  the 
panting  man  falls  into  his  grave. 

It  is  to  a  generation  thus  intent — to  a  generation 
that  has  wrought  wondrously  in  the  realms  of  ap 
plied  science — that  God  in  His  Word,  and  by  the 
preacher,  says :  All  these  are  worthy  only,  and  in 
proportion  as  they  contribute  to  the  regeneration  of 


AT   THE   ECUMENICAL   CONFERENCE  499 

mankind;  Every  invention,  every  work,  every  man, 
every  nation,  must  one  day  come  to  this  weighing 
platform  and  be  appraised. 

To  what  other  end  is  all  this  stir  among  men — 
this  increase  of  knowledge?  That  these  great  agen 
cies  may  be  put  in  livery  and  lined  up  in  the  halls 
of  wealth  to  make  life  brilliant  and  soft,  or  become 
the  docile  messengers  of  a  counting  house  or  a  stock 
exchange,  or  the  swift  couriers  of  contending  armies, 
or  the  courtiers  who  wait  in  the  halls  of  science  to 
give  glory  to  the  man  into  whose  hand  God  has 
given  the  key  to  one  of  His  mysteries?  Do  all 
these  great  inventions,  these  rushing  intellectual  de 
velopments,  exhaust  their  ministry  in  the  making 
of  men  rich,  and  the  reinforcing  of  armies  and 
fleets  ?  No. 

These  are  servants,  prophets,  fore-runners.  They 
will  find  a  herald's  voice;  there  will  be  an  annuncia 
tion  and  a  coronation.  The  first  results  seem  to  be 
the  stimulation  of  a  material  production  and  a  fiercer 
struggle  for  markets.  Cabinets,  as  well  as  trade 
chambers,  are  thinking  of  the  world  chiefly  as  a 
market  house,  and  of  men  as  "producers"  and  "con 
sumers."  We  now  seldom  have  wars  of  succession, 
or  for  mere  political  dominion.  Places  are  strategic 
primarily  from  the  commercial  standpoint.  Colonies 
are  corner  stalls  in  the  world's  market  place.  If  the 
product  tarries  too  long  in  the  warehouse,  the  mill 
must  shut  down  and  discontent  will  walk  the  streets. 


5OO  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

The  propulsion  of  this  commercial  force  upon  cabi 
nets  and  nations  was  never  so  strong  as  now.  The 
battle  of  the  markets  is  at  its  fiercest.  The  great 
quest  of  the  nations  is  for  "consumers."  The  voice 
of  commerce  is:  "And  my  hand  hath  found  as  a 
nest  the  riches  of  the  people :  and  as  one  gathereth 
eggs  that  are  left,  have  I  gathered  all  the  earth." 

But  with  the  increase  of  commerce  and  wealth  the 
stress  of  social  difficulties  is  not  relieved  but  rather 
increased  in  all  of  the  great  nations.  The  tendency 
is  not  to  one  brotherhood  but  to  many.  Work  for 
the  willing  at  a  wage  that  will  save  the  spirit  as 
well  as  the  body  is  a  problem  of  increasing  tapgle 
and  intricacy.  Competition  forces  economical  devices 
and  names  wages  that  are,  in  some  cases,  insufficient 
to  renew  the  strength  expended.  It  suggests,  if  it 
does  not  compel,  aggregations  of  capital,  and  these 
in  turn  present  many  threatening  aspects.  Agencies 
of  man's  devising  may  alleviate,  but  they  can  not 
cure  this  tendency  to  division  and  strife  and  substi 
tute  a  drift  to  peace  and  unity.  Christ  in  the  heart 
and  His  gospel  of  love  and  ministry  in  all  the  ac 
tivities  of  life  are  the  only  cure. 

The  highest  conception  that  has  ever  entered  the 
mind  of  man  is  that  of  God  as  the  father  of  all 
men — the  one  blood — the  universal  brotherhood. 
It  was  not  evolved,  but  revealed.  The  natural  man 
lives  to  be  ministered  unto — he  lays  his  imposts  upon 
others.  He  buys  slaves  that  they  may  fan  his  sleep, 


AT   THE   ECUMENICAL    CONFERENCE  JOI 

bring  him  the  jeweled  cup,  dance  before  him  and 
die  in  the  arena  for  his  sport.  Into  such  a  world 
there  came  a  King,  "not  to  be  ministered  unto  but 
to  minister."  The  rough  winds  fanned  His  sleep; 
He  drank  of  the  mountain  brook,  and  made  not 
the  water  wine  for  Himself;  would  not  use  His 
power  to  stay  His  own  hunger,  but  had  compassion 
on  the  multitude.  He  called  them  He  had  bought 
with  a  great  price  no  more  servants  but  friends.  He 
entered  the  bloody  arena  alone,  and  dying,  broke  all 
chains  and  brought  immortality  to  light. 

Here  is  the  perfect  altruism;  here  the  true  ap 
praisal  of  men.  Ornaments  of  gold  and  gems,  silken 
robes,  houses,  lands,  stocks  and  bonds — these  are 
tare  when  men  are  weighed.  Where  else  is  there  a 
scale  so  true?  Where  a  brotherhood  so  wide  and 
perfect?  Labor  is  made  noble — the  King  credits  the 
smallest  service.  His  values  are  relative;  He  takes 
account  of  the  per  cent,  when  tribute  is  brought  into 
His  treasury.  No  coin  of  love  is  base  or  small  to 
Him.  The  widow's  mite  he  sets  in  His  crown.  Life 
is  sweetened;  the  poor  man  becomes  of  account. 
Where  else  is  found  a  philosophy  of  life  so  sweet 
and  adaptable — a  philosophy  of  death  so  comforting? 

The  men  who,  like  Paul,  have  gone  to  heathen 
lands  with  the  message,  we  "seek  not  yours  but 
you,"  have  been  hindered  by  those  who,  coming 
after,  have  reversed  the  message.  Rum  and  other 
corrupting  agencies  come  in  with  our  boasted  civili- 


5O2  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

zation,  and  the  feeble  races  wither  before  the  hot 
breath  of  the  white  man's  vices.  The  great  nations 
have  combined  to  suppress  the  slave  trade.  Is  it  too 
much  to  ask  that  they  shall  combine  to  prevent  the 
sale  of  spirits  to  men  who,  less  than  our  children, 
have  acquired  the  habits  of  self-restraint?  If  we 
must  have  "consumers,"  let  us  give  them  an  inno 
cent  diet. 

The  enemies  of  foreign  missions  have  spoken 
tauntingly  of  the  slowness  of  the  work  and  of  its 
great  and  disproportionate  cost,  and  we  have  too  ex 
clusively  consoled  ourselves  and  answered  the  criti 
cism  by  the  suggestion  that  with  God  a  thousand 
years  is  as  one  day.  We  should  not  lose  sight  of 
the  other  side  of  that  truth — one  day  with  Him  is 
as  a  thousand  years.  God  has  not  set  a  uniform 
pace  for  Himself  in  the  work  of  bringing  in  the 
kingdom  of  His  Son.  He  will  hasten  it  in  His  day. 
The  stride  of  His  Church  shall  be  so  quickened  that 
commerce  will  be  the  laggard.  Love  shall  outrun 
greed.  He  exacts  faith.  He  will  not  answer  the 
demand  to  show  a  course  of  stone  in  His  great 
cathedral  for  every  thousand  dollars  given.  But  it 
may  justly  be  asked  that  the  administrators  of  our 
mission  treasuries  justify  their  accounts;  that  they 
use  a  business  wisdom  and  economy;  that  there  be 
no  waste;  that  the  workmen  do  not  hinder  each 
other.  The  plowing  and  the  sowing  must  be  well 
done.  These  may  be  and  should  be  judged;  that  is 


AT   THE   ECUMENICAL    CONFERENCE  503 

men's  part  of  the  work.  But  the  care  of  well  planted 
seed  is  with  God.  We  shall  have  reports  from  the 
harvesters  showing  that  He  has  given  the  promised 
increase — some  thirty  and  some  an  hundred  fold. 

Gifts  to  education  are  increasingly  munificent. 
University  endowments  have  been  swelled  by  vast 
single  gifts  in  the  United  States  during  the  last 
few  years.  We  rejoice  in  this.  But  may  we  not 
hope  that,  in  the  exposition  of  the  greater  needs  of 
the  educational  work  in  the  mission  fields,  to  be  pre 
sented  in  this  conference,  some  men  of  wealth  may 
find  the  suggestion  to  endow  great  schools  in  mis 
sion  lands  ?  It  is  a  great  work  to  increase  the  can 
dle  power  of  our  great  educational  arc  lights,  but 
to  give  to  cave  dwellers  an  incandescent  may  be  a 
better  one. 

Not  the  least  beneficent  aspect  and  influence  of 
this  great  gathering  will  be  found  in  the  Christian 
union  that  it  evidences.  The  value  of  this  is  great 
at  home,  but  tenfold  greater  in  the  mission  field, 
where  ecclesiastical  divisions  suggest  diverse  prophets. 
The  Bible  does  not  draw  its  illustrations  wholly  from 
the  home  or  the  field,  but  uses  also  the  strenuous 
things  of  life — the  race,  the  fight,  the  girded  soldier, 
the  assault.  There  are  many  fields;  there  are  di 
verse  arms;  the  battle  is  in  the  bush  and  the  com 
rades  that  are  seen  are  few.  A  view  of  the  whole 
army  is  a  good  thing;  the  heart  is  strengthened  by 
an  enlarged  comradeship.  It  gives  promise  that  the 


504  VIEWS   OF   AN    EX-PRESIDENT 

flanks  will  be  covered  and  a  reserve  organized.  After 
days  in  the  brush  the  sense  of  numbers  is  lost.  It 
greatly  strengthens  the  soldier  and  quickens  his  pace, 
when  he  advances  to  battle,  if  a  glance  to  right  or 
left  reveals  many  pennons,  and  a  marshaled  host, 
moving  under  one  great  leader  to  execute  a  single 
battle  plan. 

During  the  Atlanta  campaign  of  our  civil  war  the 
marching  and  fighting  had  been  largely  in  the  brush. 
Sometimes  in  an  advance  the  commander  of  a  regi 
ment  could  see  no  more  than  half  of  his  own  line, 
while  the  supports  to  his  right  and  left  were  wholly 
hidden.  To  him  it  seemed  as  if  his  battalion  was 
making  an  unsupported  assault.  The  extended  line, 
the  reserve,  were  matters  of  faith.  But  one  day  the 
advancing  army  broke  suddenly  from  the  brush  into 
a  savannah — a  long  narrow  natural  meadow — and 
the  army  was  revealed.  From  the  center,  far  to  the 
right  and  left,  the  distinctive  corps,  division,  brig 
ade  and  regimental  colors  appeared,  and  associated 
with  each  of  these  was  the  one  flag  that  made  the 
army  one.  A  mighty  spontaneous  cheer  burst  from 
the  whole  line  and  every  soldier  tightened  his  grip 
upon  his  rifle  and  quickened  his  step.  What  that 
savannah  did  for  that  army  this  world's  conference 
of  missions  should  do  for  the  church. 


AT  THE  ECUMENICAL  MISSIONARY  CON 
FERENCE 

RESPONSE  TO  WELCOME  OF  PRESIDENT    MCKINLEY  AND 
GOVERNOR  ROOSEVELT 

April  21,  1900 

0 

It  would  have  been  more  appropriate  if  some  one  of 
our  distinguished  foreign  guests  had  been  assigned 
to  the  pleasant  duty  of  acknowledging  the  generous 
and  kindly  welcome  which  has  been  brought  by  the 
president  of  the  United  States  and  by  the  governor 
of  New  York  state,  to  this  great  conference. 

But  in  behalf  of  the  delegates  who,  from  far  and 
near  have  gathered  in  this  conference,  I  return  to 
the  president  of  the  United  States  our  most  hearty 
thanks  for  his  presence  here  to-night.  Perhaps 
some  of  our  foreign  guests  miss  the  display,  and  the 
regalia,  and  the  sound  of  trumpets  with  which  the 
chief  executives  of  foreign  nations  make  their  prog 
ress  and  are  greeted  by  their  subjects.  Could  any 
thing  be  more  simple,  and  when  the  mind  receives 
the  thought,  anything  more  grand  and  majestic,  than 
the  simple  presence  of  an  American  president  here 

505 


VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

to-night!  We  were  quite  prepared,  sir  [to  President 
McKinley],  because  you  are  known  by  your  fellow- 
countrymen  as  a  Christian  gentleman,  that  you  should 
extend  to  these  who  are  assembled  the  sympathy  and 
fellowship  of  one  who  has  part  with  them  in  the 
work  of  setting  up  God's  kingdom  in  the  world; 
but  it  was  kind,  sir,  that  you  should  leave  those  duties 
that  some  have  recently  called  simple,  and  which,  at 
least  you  and  I  know,  are  arduous  and  exacting  to 
the  very  extremity  of  human  endurance,  and  should 
add  to  them  the  labor  of  travel,  that  you  might  witness 
here  on  behalf  of  this  Christian  nation  the  sympathy 
of  the  whole  country  with  this  great  foreign  missionary 
movement. 

Of  course,  it  was  no  trouble  for  Governor  Roose 
velt  to  come  here.  Indeed,  I  think  he  rather  likes 
to  get  away  from  Albany,  and  if  we  may  believe 
those  unfailing  chroniclers  of  the  truth,  whose  rep 
resentatives  are  here  before  me,  he  is  not  infre 
quently  here  for  the  purpose  of  having  consultations. 
He  availed  himself  of  the  few  moments  that  we 
spent  together  in  the  reception  room  to  consult  me 
about  a  matter,  and  when  I  had  given  him  my  opin 
ion,  he  said :  "Well,  that  is  what  I  was  going  to  do 
anyhow,  no  matter  what  you  would  say,"  I  felt  very 
lucky  that  I  had  hit  upon  the  conclusion  at  which 
he  had  already  arrived.  We  are  glad  to  have  from 
him  these  hearty  words  of  commendation  of  the 
cause  of  missions.  I  think  you  can  receive  as  the 


AT   THE   ECUMENICAL    CONFERENCE  507 

truth  what  he  has  said.  In  my  observation  of  him 
he  has  a  passion  for  the  truth.  The  only  trouble 
I  ever  had  with  managing  him — and  you  know,  as 
he  has  confessed,  how  thoroughly  I  did  that — was 
that  it  seemed  to  me  he  wanted  to  put  an  end  to  all 
the  evil  in  the  world  between  sunrise  and  sunset. 
He  was  not  willing  to  take  as  much  time  sometimes 
as  I  thought  was  necessary  in  order  not  to  fracture 
things  too  much,  though  we  never  differed  as  to  the 
end  that  was  to  be  attained.  He  wanted  to  get  there 
very  quickly — I  am,  perhaps,  a  little  bit  too  conserv 
ative  and  slow — but  it  is  pleasant  to  have  in  his  per 
son  one  known  to  us  all  to  be  so  thorough  a  soldier 
of  righteousness  and  right-doing;  to  hear  from  him 
to-night  his  testimony  to  the  work  of  missions,  a 
work  in  this  country  and  yet  a  work  among  savage 
tribes,  a  work  identical  with  that  which  in  a  foreign 
field  other  missionaries  are  working  out. 

Mr.  Chairman,  these  personal  greetings  are  delight 
ful  to  us,  coming  from  these  two  great  executive  offi 
cers,  but  it  is  not  so  strange,  for  were  their  personal 
sympathies  less  fully  given  to  this  cause  than  we 
know  them  to  be,  it  would  be  quite  in  line  with  their 
office  that  they  should  come  and  speak  to  a  Chris 
tian  assembly  here  to-night,  and  encourage  the 
work  of  spreading  Christianity  throughout  the 
world.  Upon  what  conservative  element  is  it  that 
the  security  and  peace  of  our  community  depend? 
Out  of  what  do  those  maxims  of  life  come  tKat  malce 


508  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

it  decent,  that  curb  passion,  that  limit  selfishness, 
and  that  bind  men  together  in  common  purposes  for 
the  security  and  happiness  of  communities?  It  is, 
indeed,  in  and  out  of  this  sacred  word  of  God  that 
a  system  of  morality  has  come  that  makes  life  sweet 
and  gives  to  it  possibilities  that  would  otherwise  be 
out  of  thought.  It  is  reported  that  the  aged  Ger 
man  chancellor,  Prince  Hohenlohe,  recently  said  as 
he  looked  about  over  the  world,  its  struggles,  and 
strifes,  and  distress,  and  grief,  that  it  seemed  to  him 
that  that  geological  era  had  returned  when  the  sau- 
rians,  gigantic  monsters,  walked  the  earth  in  their 
devouring  forms.  He  was  addressing,  I  think,  a 
meeting  of  scholars,  and  he  turned  to  scholarship  as 
giving  him  hope  for  a  world  that  seemed  to  be  greedy 
for  the  destruction  of  its  own  members.  Ah,  my 
friends,  not  scholarship,  not  invention,  not  any  of 
these  noble  and  creditable  developments  of  our  era 
— not  to  these,  but  to  the  word  of  God  and  the 
church  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  must  we  turn  for 
the  hope  that  men  may  be  delivered  from  this  con 
suming  greed  and  selfishness. 

"Thy  neighbor  as  thyself" — that  second  great 
commandment  of  our  Lord — in  that  and  in  the  power 
which  it  has  already  obtained,  and  the  power  it  shall 
yet  obtain  over  the  hearts  and  minds  of  men,  is  our 
deliverance  from  this  perilous  condition  of  which 
Prince  Hohenlohe  spoke.  The  church  is  not  a  rev 
olutionary  hooter.  The  church  cf  God,  as  it  was 


AT    THE   ECUMENICAL    CONFERENCE  509 

started  in  its  way  by  its  Lord  and  Master,  did  not 
stir  up  rebellion,  did  not  set  men  against  their  gov 
erning  officers.  "Tribute  to  whom  tribute  is  due." 
Let  Caesar  have  his  tribute.  Respect  for  our  magis 
trates  as  the  representatives  of  the  chief  magisterial 
power  above,  our  gospel  teaches.  And  these  mis 
sionaries  going  into  these  foreign  lands  do  not  go  to 
disturb  the  political  conditions  of  the  states  that  they 
enter.  Not  at  all.  They  preach  no  crusade;  incite 
no  rebellion,  but  work  by  instilling  the  principles  of 
the  gospel  of  Christ — the  doctrine  of  the  parity  of 
man — that  God  has  made  of  one  blood  all  people — 
that  not  titles  and  not  robes,  not  the  outer  things 
at  all,  but  the  heart  is  the  seat  of  judgment  and  es 
teem;  and  this  doctrine  working  its  quiet  way 
through  the  world  will  yet  bring  in  the  Kingdom  that 
is  promised.  Thy  brother  as  thyself;  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself.  Do  we  count  the  growth  of  the  church 
by  our  membership  roll?  Has  the  gospel  done  noth 
ing  more?  Ah,  think  for  a  moment,  my  friends. 
If  you  could  blot  out  of  your  statute  books,  out  of 
your  constitutions,  out  of  your  codes  of  morals,  out 
of  your  social  and  family  institutions  all  that  is  de 
rived  from  the  sacred  book,  what  would  there  be 
left  to  bind  society  together? 

I  thank  you,  and  again  I  thank  our  distinguished 
friends  in  your  behalf,  for  their  presence  and  words 
of  cheer  to-night.  It  is  a  great  thing  that  this  great 
city,  so  full  of  stir,  and  rush,  and  business,  should 


5IO  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

have  been  so  moved  upon  t>y  this  conference  as  to 
present  to  us  to-night  this  magnificent  assembly. 

May  the  Lord  God,  in  whose  hands  are  the  hearts 
of  all  men,  turn  our  hearts  to  Him,  and  keep  you, 
Mr.  President  and  Governor  Roosevelt,  and  the 
rulers  of  all  these  nations  represented  here,  in  His 
peace  and  love. 


AT  THE  ECUMENICAL  MISSIONARY  CON 
FERENCE 

FAREWELL   ADDRESS 
May  I,  1900 

I  was  designated  to  speak  the  opening  word  when 
this  conference  assembled,  and  the  duty  is  laid  upon 
me  to-night  to  speak  the  closing  word.  I  do  not 
like  to  regard  this  as  the  end  of  the  conference.  We 
shall  have  no  more  lectures;  the  teachers  will  be  re 
tired;  we  shall  not  gather  here  any  more,  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  we  might  call  these  exercises  to 
night  commencement  exercises.  It  is  the  way  the 
colleges  have,  you  know,  when  the  professors  are  re 
tired,  and  the  class-rooms  are  closed,  and  they  have 
the  last  meeting.  They  call  it  a  commencement,  and 
a  very  appropriate  word  it  is.  What  has  taken  place 
was  preparatory,  it  was  fitting  out  people;  it  was 
setting  up  a  mast  and  springing  the  sails — a  very 
essential  sort  of  work,  but  of  no  great  account  if  it 
stops  there.  The  ship  must  spread  her  sails;  she 
must  turn  her  prow  away  from  the  dock;  she  must 
throw  off  her  moorings,  and.  with  her  cargo  of  mer 
chandise  or  of  human  lives,  go  out  upon  the  sea 


5 12  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

on  an  errand  somewhere,  to  carry  something  or 
somebody  where  it  is  needed.  That  is  what  all  this 
means.  And  so  I  like  to  think  of  this  conference 
as  a  school  that  is  holding  to-night  its  commencement ; 
and  of  these  missionaries  who  have  been  privileged 
to  come  back,  either  to  their  native  land  or  at  least 
to  one  of  the  homelands  of  missions,  as  men  who 
have  been  taking  here  a  post-graduate  course.  Of 
those  of  us  who  are  delegates,  as  Christian  men  and 
women,  we  have  come  here  to  make  reports  about 
the  work  and  to  listen  to  the  story  of  what  has  been 
done;  not  to  rest  in  the  pride  of  it,  but  to  find  in 
it  an  inspiration  of  greater  things  yet  to  be  done. 

Do  you  know,  my  friends,  that  these  ten  days  of 
the  ecumenical  conference  on  foreign  missions  in 
New  York  have  been  days  full  of  significance  and 
import?  I  have  spoken  before  to  many  great  audi 
ences.  I  have  seen  the  political  spirit  in  this  coun 
try  kindled  to  a  white  heat.  I  have  in  this  hall  ad 
dressed  great  political  assemblages,  but  I  never  have 
been  associated  with  a  political  campaign  where  the 
interest  was  sufficient  to  fill  this  hall  and  three  or 
four  overflow  halls  and  churches  three  times  a  day 
for  ten  days.  It  is  a  revelation  to  the  city  of  New 
York  and  to  the  United  States,  and  to  the  world. 
Men  have  not  taken  account  of  these  things;  they 
are  taking  account  of  them  now.  There  is  scarcely 
a  business  house  or  office  in  New  York  where  they 
have  not  been  talking  of  these  great  meetings. 


AT   THE   ECUMENICAL   CONFERENCE  513 

Well,  if  it  is  commencement,  then  every  one  who 
has  been  privileged  to  sit  here,  every  one  who  has 
any  part  in  these  meetings,  is  under  pledge  to  go  out 
into  life  with  a  renewed  resolve  to  do  more  and  to 
do  better  for  foreign  missions  than  he  has  ever  done 
before.  It  has  failed  of  its  purpose  if  it  has  not 
touched  your  heart  as  it  has  touched  mine,  with  a 
deeper  sense  of  obligation  to  our  Lord  to  help  in 
the  work  of  evangelizing  the  world.  Every  one  of 
the  mission  boards  which  has  been  represented  here, 
and  every  allied  board  and  agency  in  the  cause  of 
missions,  home  and  foreign,  ought  to  feel  an  impe 
tus  and  stimulus,  and  ought  to  have  its  treasury 
filled  as  never  before  by  the  grateful  offerings  of 
churches  who  feel  their  debt  to  their  Lord. 

The  great  Christian  unity,  comity — whatever  you 
call  it;  we  had  better  not  puzzle  over  names — it  sim 
ply  means,  my  good  bishop,  [addressing  Bishop 
Doane]  that  your  heart  and  mine  have  been  drawn  to 
gether  and  touched,  and  we  are  more  than  ever  before 
brothers  and  brethren.  I  do  not  think  at  all  that  it 
means  that  the  Presbyterian  church  is  to  dissolve  itself, 
or  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  is  to  abandon 
its  honored  and  useful  place  among  the  Christian  work 
ers  of  the  world ;  not  at  all.  The  impression  we  want 
to  make,  that  we  must  make,  upon  Christians  at  home 
and  in  mission  fields,  is  this,  that  we  have  one  Prophet, 
one  Lord,  one  Book. 

Why,  I  do  not  suppose  that  any  enemy  who  might 


'514  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

confront  the  United  States  would  be  left  in  doubt 
at  all  in  a  campaign  that  the  Seventh  cavalry  and 
the  Twenty-second  infantry  were  fighting  for  the 
same  flag.  And  so  it  ought  to  be  among  the  Chris 
tian  churches.  We  have  spent  an  immense  amount 
of  strength  very  foolishly  in  discussing  the  question 
as  to  which  of  the  churches  has  most  strictly  pre 
served  the  apostolic  form.  Now  that  is  a  question 
that  never  will  be  settled  in  this  world,  and  I  think 
that  questions  that  can  never  be  settled  might  just 
as  well  never  be  discussed.  I  have  said,  that  that 
question  will  never  be  settled  in  this  world,  and  my 
judgment  is — and  I  say  it  reverently,  too — that  it 
will  never  be  settled  in  the  next,  for  when  the  Lord 
comes  in  His  glory,  when  He  is  seen  in  fulfillment 
of  the  Father's  mighty  promise  and  the  travail  of 
His  soul,  and  the  world  has  come  to  Him,  and  every 
knee  has  bowed,  and  every  tongue  confessed,  there 
will  be  no  consideration  of  the  question  as  to  which 
of  the  churches  was  nearest  to  the  apostolic  form. 
It  will  be  to  the  faithful  ones  out  of  all  churches: 
"Well  done,  thou  good  and  faithful  servant." 

Is  not  this  supreme  loyalty  to  the  holy  catholic 
church  universal — the  church  whose  names  are  writ 
ten  in  heaven?  Is  not  that  consistent?  Is  it  im 
pinged  upon  or  hurt  by  love  to  my  own  church  ?  Not 
at  all,  any  more  than  the  love  I  bear  for  the  state 
I  live  in  impairs  the  sincerity  or  faithfulness  of  my 
allegiance  to  that  great  Union  o'f  the  states  whose  flag" 


AT   THE   ECUMENICAL   CONFERENCE  515 

floats  over  us  all.  I  do  not  think  a  man  who  does 
not  love  his  state,  the  city  where  he  lives,  the 
neighbors  who  are  about  him,  the  home  of  his 
father  and  mother — who  has  not  some  special  at 
tachments — will  ever  make  a  good  citizen  of  the 
United  States.  I  believe  this  spirit,  this  discriminat 
ing  spirit,  this  spirit  of  love  and  fellowship  has 
been  mightily  set  forward  by  this  great  conference. 
The  army  will  co-operate,  the  cavalry  will  not  say 
to  the  artillery:  "We  have  no  need  of  you,"  and 
the  artillery  will  be  particularly  careful  to  stop  fir 
ing  when  the  cavalry  charges.  Of  all  the  demoral 
izing  incidents  that  can  happen  to  an  army,  the 
worst  is  to  be  fired  into  by  mistake — for  it  can  never 
be  done  purposely — by  some  of  its  own  men.  We 
expect  fire  from  the  adversary;  but  when,  as  has 
sometimes  happened  in  a  campaign  in  the  timber  or 
brush,  or  in  confusion,  a  supporting  column,  for 
getting  that  men  of  their  own  flag  are  in  front  of 
them,  deliver  their  fire,  no  troops  in  the  world  can 
stand  it;  it  is  demoralization;  it  is  dismay.  Breth 
ren,  we  will  take  care  as  never  before  that  we  do 
not  stand  in  the  way;  that  we  do  not  by  any  possi 
bility  deliver  a  shot  that  shall  find  its  mark  in  any 
of  the  regiments  that  march  under  the  banner  of  our 
Lord. 

And  now,  to  these  gentlemen  who  have  so  gra 
ciously  expressed  the  thanks  of  the  visiting  delegates 
and  missionaries,  may  I  be  permitted  to  say  in  your 


5l6  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

behalf  that  we  are  all  debtors.  No  one  ever  received 
a  prophet  of  God  into  his  House  that  did  not  receive 
more  than  he  gave.  You  have  brought  to  us  these 
precious  women  who  have  come  from  mission  fields; 
you  have  brought  to  us,  into  our  hearts  and  into 
our  homes,  sanctifying  and  inspiring  influences  with 
which  the  breath  that  perished  is  not  to  be  compared. 
We  part  with  you  in  sorrow,  and  yet,  bitter  as  they 
are,  the  Christian  partings  always  are  cheered  by 
the  promise  of  the  great  gathering  where  all  who 
love  the  Lord  shall  see  each  other  again.  We  thank 
you  for  your  gracious  and  instructive  words;  we 
thank  you  for  the  inspiration  you  have  given  us; 
we  hope  that  you  have  caught  from  our  hearts  some 
of  the  love  we  bear  you,  and  that  you  will  go  back 
to  the  Lord's  appointed  work  stronger  for  our 
prayers  and  for  our  sympathy. 

And  now,  as  we  bring  this  meeting  to  a  close, 
may  I  not  assure  you  all  that  the  prayers  of  the 
church  in  America  will  be  offered  with  a  frequency 
and  a  fervor  they  have  never  had  before,  and  that 
the  pockets  and  the  purses  of  the  American  people 
will  be  opened  with  a  generosity  they  have  never 
shown  before,  to  conduct  this  great  world-work — 
a  work  which  is  to  bring  in  the  day  when  the  king 
doms  of  the  earth  shall  become  the  kingdoms  of  our 
Lord? 

God  bless  you  all,  abide  with  you  in  your  places, 
strengthen  your  hearts,  fill  them  with  the  converts 


AT   THE   ECUMENICAL   CONFERENCE  517 

that  He  knows  so  well  how  to  convert,  and  give  you 
success  in  your  devoted  efforts  to  make  known  His 
name  to  those  who  are  in  darkness. 


REMARKS  AS  PRESIDING  OFFICER  AT  IN 
DIANAPOLIS    RAILROAD    CHRISTIAN 
ASSOCIATION  ANNIVERSARY 

On  Sunday,  Fall  of  1900 

I  suppose  the  special  work  among  railroad  men 
did  not  have  its  origin  in  any  opinion  that  railroad 
men  were  in  greater  need  of  the  comforting  and 
strengthening  influence  of  the  gospel  of  Christ  than 
other  men.  Every  man's  need  is  so  extreme  in  that 
respect  that  we  can  not  make  comparisons.  Per 
haps  rather  it  has  its  origin  in  the  fact  that  those 
who  were  managing  these  things  thought  that  to  get 
hold  of  railroad  men  would  be  to  occupy  a  strong 
strategic  position  in  the  fight  for  good  morals  and 
religion,  because  you  are  stirring  about  so  much. 
Knowledge  increases  when  men  go  to  and  fro,  and 
most  of  you  are  going  to  and  fro.  The  railroads 
themselves  are  getting  to  understand  that  mechani 
cal  skill  is  not  hurt  any  if  it  is  backed  up  by  good 
moral  character — indeed,  they  are  beginning  to  make 
some  requirement  in  that  direction  looking  exclus- 


RAILROAD    CHRISTIAN   ASSOCIATION  519 

ively  to  the  business  side  of  railroad  management, 
not  because  they  are  Christians,  but  because  railroad 
property  is  safer  in  the  hands  of  men  who  are  re 
sponsible.  I  fancy  that  a  man  who  believes  that  he 
will  not  only  be  applauded  by  the  president  of  the 
road,  but  will  have  the  applause  of  the  King  of  the 
Universe — the  Lord  God — is  not  less  apt  to  stay  in 
front  when  a  collision  is  imminent.  The  man  who 
receives  the  religious  idea  that  he  may  please  God 
in  running  a  lathe  or  an  engine — that  to  do  things 
well  and  conscientiously,  scrupulously,  is  pleasing 
not  only  to  the  boss  of  the  shop,  but  to  God — is  a  lit 
tle  more  apt  to  be  scrupulous  and  honest  and  care 
ful  and  brave  than  if  he  did  not  believe  these  things. 
So  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  old  idea  about 
railroad  men,  very  much  like  that  about  the 
"roustabouts"  and  mates  on  the  old  steamboats — 
when  it  was  thought  that  steamboat  men  could  not 
manage  "roustabouts"  without  an  immense  amount 
of  profanity — that  they  must  be  rough — is  giv 
ing  way.  It  is  not  necessary.  If  you  are  picking 
out  a  brave  man  now,  you  can't  say:  "Always  take 
the  man  that  swears  the  most."  There  used  to  be 
a  thought  of  that  kind  in  connection  with  soldiers — 
that  a  soldier  must  be  a  rough,  boisterous,  swear 
ing,  drinking  man.  But  General  Howard  and  others 
took  that  notion  out  of  the  minds  of  men.  It  is  the 
conscientious,  God-fearing  soldier  that  will  stay  the 
longest  in  a  hot  place. 


'52O  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

I  am  not  here  to  make  a  speech,  but  only  to  ex 
press  by  my  presence  and  these  few  words  my  in 
terest  in  this  work  and  to  assume  formal  direction  of 
the  exercises  of  the  afternoon. 


"HAIL    COLUMBIA"— A   LAND— A    SONG— A 

CLUB 

AT  THE  COLUMBIA  CLUB  BANQUET,  INDIANAPOLIS 

December  31,  1900 

My  toast  has  great  scope.  I  do  not  think  of 
anything  that  may  not,  without  glaring  inappropri- 
ateness,  be  connected  with  it.  A  late  speaker  should 
always  choose  such  a  toast.  Where  the  antecedent 
orators  are  addicted  to  ranging,  it  is  the  only  way 
to  save  an  untrodden  fence  corner  with  a  few  clumps 
of  bunch  grass — dry  but  nutritious.  I  do  not  speak 
of  flowers,  for  I  foresaw  that  there  would  not  be 
enough  left  for  me  to  make  a  boutonniere — after  our 
senators  had  been  heard! 

Columbia  should  have  been  the  name  of  the 
western  hemisphere — the  republican  half  of  the 
world — the  hemisphere  without  a  king  on  the 
ground — the  reserved  world,  where  God  sent  the 
trodden  spirits  of  men  to  be  revived;  to  find,  where 
all  things  were  primitive,  man's  primitive  rights. 

Royal    prerogatives    are    plants    that    require    a 


522  VIEWS   OF  AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

walled  garden  and  to  be  defended  from  the  wild, 
free  growths  that  crowd  and  climb  upon  them. 
Pomp  and  laced  garments  are  incongruous  in  the 
brush.  Danger  and  hardships  are  commoners.  The 
man  in  front  is  the  captain — the  royal  commission 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  The  platoon  and 
volley  firing  by  the  word  would  not  do — the  open 
order,  one  man  to  a  tree,  firing  at  his  own  will  and 
at  a  particular  savage,  was  better.  Out  of  this  and 
like  calls  to  do  things  upon  his  own  initiative  the 
free  American  was  born.  He  thought  he  might  get 
along  with  kings  and  imperial  parliaments  if  they 
were  benevolent,  and  did  and  allowed  what  he 
wished,  but  they  were  forever  doing  their  own  pleas 
ure,  as  the  way  of  absolutism  always  is.  And  so 
he  found  it  necessary  first  to  remonstrate  and  then 
to  resist. 

Now  a  remonstrance  implies  an  argument.  The 
acts  complained  of  must  be  shown  to  have  infringed 
a  right.  At  first  he  talked  of  English  rights,  but 
it  was  not  long  until  he  began  to  talk  about  human 
rights.  The  British  parliament  was,  under  British 
law,  supreme — could  repeal  the  Magna  Charta.  He 
turned  to  the  colonial  charters,  surely  they  were  ir 
revocable  grants,  but  the  crown  courts  held  other 
wise.  What  kings  and  parliaments  had  given,  they 
could  take  away.  And  so  our  fathers  were  driven 
to  claim  divine  endowment  and  to  allow  it  to  all 
men,  since  God  had  made  all  of  one  blood.  To 


HAIL   COLUMBIA 

write  the  argument  otherwise  was  to  divest  it  of 
its  major  premise.  The  grand  conclusion — no  king 
or  parliament  can  rightfully  take  God's  gift  of  lib 
erty  from  any  man — was  thus  riveted  to  the  eternal 
throne  itself.  We  made  for  our  convenience  an  ex 
ception  in  the  case  of  the  black  man;  but  God  erased 
it  with  a  sponge  dipped  in  the  white  man's  blood. 

This  divine  law  of  individual  liberty  allows  the 
restraints  that  are  necessary  for  the  general  good, 
but  it  does  not  allow  either  a  man  or  a  civil  com 
munity  to  exploit  for  selfish  gain  another  man  or 
another  community. 

The  so-called  Anglo-Saxon — and  especially  the; 
American  branch  of  that  great  family — should  rev 
erently  and  humbly  thank  God  for  the  pre-eminent 
power  and  influence  He  has  given  to  it;  for  organ 
ized  freedom  and  for  astounding  wealth.  Verily  He 
hath  not  dealt  so  with  any  other  people.  The  gifts 
of  wealth  and  power,  whether  to  man  or  nation,  are, 
however,  to  be  soberly  taken  and  wisely  used. 

I  estimate  the  gift  of  the  governing  faculty  to 
be  God's  greatest  gift  to  the  Anglo-Saxon,  and  in 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  with  its  di 
vision  of  powers,  its  limitations  upon  the  governing 
departments  and  its  sublime  reservations  in  the  in 
terests  of  individual  liberty,  I  see  the  highest  achieve 
ment  of  that  most  rare  faculty. 

I  have  no  argument  to  make,  here  or  anywhere, 
against  territorial  expansion,  but  I  do  not,  as  some 


524  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

do,  look  to  expansion  as  the  safest  or  more  attract 
ive  avenue  of  national  development.  By  the  ad 
vantages  of  abundant  and  cheap  coal  and  iron,  of 
an  enormous  surplus  of  food  products,  and  of  inven 
tion  and  economy  in  production,  we  are  now  lead 
ing  by  a  nose  the  original  and  the  greatest  of  the 
colonizing  nations.  Australia  and  New  Zealand 
loyally  send  their  contingents  to  South  Africa — but 
Great  Britain  can  not  hold  the  trades  of  her  colo 
nies  against  American  offerings  of  a  better  or  cheap 
er  product.  The  Central  and  South  American 
states,  assured  of  our  purpose  not  only  to  respect, 
but  to  defend,  their  autonomy,  and  finding  the  peace 
and  social  order  which  a  closer  and  larger  commer 
cial  intercourse  with  the  world  will  bring,  offer  to 
our  commerce  a  field  the  full  development  of  which 
will  realize  the  Eldorado.  Hail  to  Columbia,  the 
home  of  the  free,  and  from  which  only  freedom 
can  go  out! 

The  tune  of  "Hail  Columbia"  has  for  me  some 
unpleasant  associations.  Before  we  started  on  the 
Atlanta  campaign  it  was  proclaimed  in  orders  from 
division  headquarters  that  the  first  strain  of  "Hail 
Columbia"  should  be  the  call  of  the  first  brigade. 
And  so  it  became  associated  with  falling  tents  and 
wet  and  weary  marches.  When,  after  much  march 
ing  and  some  fighting,  we  had  spread  the  scant  can 
vas  allowed  us;  had  rinsed  our  only,  or  our  extra 
shirt,  and  hung  it  out,  with  our  wet  blankets,  to  dry; 


HAIL   COLUMBIA  525 

had  found  the  most  adaptable  concaves  of  a  bed  of 
poles;  had  just  received  the  infrequent  mail  from  the 
hands  of  our  faithful  chaplain,  and  were  deep  in 
the  long-distance  newspaper  account  of  what  we 
had  done  and  were  about  to  do — from  some  near 
hilltop  the  first  strain  of  "Hail  Columbia"  rang  out, 
and  the  temptation  to  substitute  another  spelling  of 
the  first  word,  or  at  least  to  shorten  the  sound  of  the 
"a,"  was  irresistible.  The  "general"  came  next,  and 
after  an  interval,  just  long  enough  for  the  resump 
tion  of  the  wet  shirt  and  the  rolling  of  the  blankets, 
the  "assembly/'  and  quickly  afterward  "to  the  col 
ors."  When  we  were  in  line  "Hail  Columbia"  had 
done  its  dreadful  work,  demolished  a  camp  and  scat 
tered  among  its  unsightly  debris  the  fragments  of  a 
broken  command.  Then  for  the  first  time  a 
human  control  of  this  diabolical  enginery  appeared 
in  the  shape  of  an  orderly  with  a  long  white  en 
velope  stuck  in  the  belt  that  supported  his  bloodless 
saber.  Now,  I  like  to  know  where  I  am  going  be 
fore  I  pack  my  trunk.  Is  it  strange  that  I  still  feel 
an  impulse  to  reach  for  my  overcoat  when  I  hear 
"Hail  Columbia"? 

And  now,  hail  to  the  Columbia  club — an  asso 
ciation  of  loyal,  liberal-minded  Republicans — organ 
ized,  not  to  control  primaries  or  to  divide  the  spoils 
of  office,  but  to  maintain  the  ascendency  of  Repub 
lican  principles  and  to  promote  friendliness  and  good 
will  among  its  members.  I  recall  the  occasion  and 


526  VIEWS   OF   AN   EX-PRESIDENT 

the  circumstances  of  your  organization  and  the  ar 
dent  readiness  with  which  you  on  every  occasion  ren 
dered  honor  and  service  to  me  as  the  party's  candi 
date  and  as  your  neighbor.  These  things  abide  in 
my  memory;  they  are  stored  where  no  vicissitudes 
of  life  can  disturb  them.  But  they  are  more  than 
mere  pleasant  reminiscences.  They  are  bonds  of 
friendship  and  inspirations  to  duty. 

The  decapitation  of  the  ex-president,  when  the 
oath  of  office  has  been  administered  to  his  successor, 
would  greatly  vivify  a  somewhat  tiresome  ceremo 
nial.  And  we  may  some  time  solve  the  newspaper 
problem,  what  to  do  with  our  ex-presidents,  in  that 
conclusive  way.  Until  then  I  hope  an  ex-president 
may  be  permitted  to  live  somewhere  midway  be 
tween  the  house  of  the  gossip  and  the  crypt  of  the 
mummy.  He  will  know,  perhaps,  in  an  especial  way, 
how  to  show  the  highest  honor  to  the  presidential 
office  and  the  most  courteous  deference  to  the  pres 
ident.  Upon  great  questions,  however — especially 
upon  questions  of  constitutional  law — you  must  give 
an  ex-president  his  freedom  or  the  axe — and  it  is 
too  late  to  give  me  the  axe. 

Any  Democratic  friends  who  may  share  your 
hospitality  to-night  will  pardon  me  for  saying  to  any 
of  them  who  have  cast  beguiling  looks  toward  me, 
that  the  Democratic  party  has  never  been  less  at 
tractive  than  now.  No  plan  of  reorganization  sug 
gests  itself  to  me  exceot  that  suggested  by  a  wag- 


HAIL   COLUMBIA  §27 

gish  lieutenant  of  my  regiment  to  a  captain  whose 
platoons  were  inverted.  He  said:  "Captain,  if  I 
were  in  your  place  I  would  break  ranks  and  have 
the  orderly  call  the  roll!"  Perhaps  even  this  hope 
ful  program  may  fail  from  an  inability  to  agree  as  to 
the  roll  and  as  to  the  orderly. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Columbia  club,  I  congratulate 
you  upon  the  opening  of  this  magnificent  club  house 
and  thank  you  with  a  full  heart  for  your  many  acts 
of  kindness. 


THE  END 


INDEX 

Adams,  John  75,  125,  142-145 

Adams,  John  Quincy  99 

Anti  War  Party,  An  223-230 

Arbitration,  International  239-242,  495 
Asbury  Park,  N.  J. 

Address  at  banquet  of  the  Cincinnati  486 

B 

Bancroft  110,  111,  129 

Bellomont,  Lord  103 

Blackstone  35-39,68 
Boer  War  219,  220,  257-270 

Bryce,  James  219 
Burke  70,  71,  210,  211 

C 

Canada  152 

Charters,  The  Colonial  30-35,  42-48 

Chinese  War  243,  244 

Cleveland,  Grover  400,  401 

Colonies,  The  American  10-123 
Columbia  Club,  Indianapolis 

Address  at  banquet  521-527 
Commercial  Club,  Indianapolis 

AcWress  at  banquet  466-471 

Compulsory  Dishonesty  454-465 

Confederation,  The  American  124-154,  183 

Congress,  1774  and  1775  115-119 

(529) 


53O  INDEX 

Constitution,  The  National  1-29,  189-221 

Constitution,  The  English  4-6,  26 

Curtis  (Author  Constitutional  History  U.  S.)  84 

D 

Declaration  of  Independence;  120,  122,  123,  125,  126 

Drayton,  Justice,  64 

E 
Ecumenical  Missionary  Conference 

Addresses  as  Honorary  Chairman  497-517 

Education 

Military,  in  Schools  367-370 

Of  Children  419-425 

Executive,  The  State  173 

The  National  429-435 

F 

Forum,  The 

Article  on  Compulsory  Dishonesty  454-465 

Frothingham  98 

Franklin,  Benjamin  32,  59,  77, 105-110 

G 

Gladstone,  William  E.  2,  5 

Grand  Army  of  Republic 

Address  at  National  Encampment  361-366 

Great  Britain 

An  alliance  with  245-257 

H 
Hamilton,  Alexander  442 

Hawaii  188 

Hoar,  George  F.  226-228 

Hohenlohe,  Prince  508 

Hutchinson,  Governor  50,  81,  90 

I 

Indianapolis 

Address  upon  return  to  in  1893  358 

Commercial  Club— "No  Mean  City"  466-471 

Flag  presentation,  Light  Artillery  482-485 

Columbia  Club  banquet  521-527 


INDEX 


531 


Inheritance  Tax  Cases  of  Illinois 
Argument  in  Supreme  Court 


298-330 


Jefferson,  Thomas 
Judiciary,  The  Colonial 
The  National 

Kruger,  Paul 


83,  442 

59,  60 

429-435 

266 


Law  Reforms,  Some  Hindrances  to 

Lecture  at  Ann  Arbor 
Lincoln,  Abraham 
Lodge,  Henry  Cabot 

M 
Madison,  James 

Marquette  Club,  Chicago 

Address  Lincoln's  Birthday 

Mason,  George 

Mayflower  Compact 

McKinley,  William 

Military  Instruction  in  Schools 

Miller,  Mr.  Justice 

Monroe  Doctrine 

Morton,  Levi  P. 

N 

New  England  Society  of  Pennsylvania 
Address  at  banquet 


273-297 

472-478 

40,45 

207 

472-478 
64 
20 

382-387,  506 

367-370 

206 

239,  242 
390,  391 


371-375 


Paris,  France 

Address  American  Chamber  of  Commerce  490-496 

Parliament,  The  English  27,  28,  69,  70,  73-85 

Penn,  William  48,  49,  53,  101 

Pensions,  363-365 

Petition,  Right  of  54,  57 

Philippines,  The  188,  189 

Pinckney,  Charles  Cotesworth  122 

Pitt,  William  71,  72,  226 


532  INDEX 

Political  Speeches 

McKinley  meeting,  Indianapolis,  1894  382-387 

Meeting,  Carnegie  Hall,  New  York,  1894  388-418 

Meeting,  Carnegie  Hall,  New  York,  1896,  426-453 

Porto  Rico                                                      188,  189,  193,  208-216 

R 
Railroad  Men's  Christian  Association 

Address  as  presiding  officer  518-520 

Rainsford,  Rev.  Dr.  292 

Red  Cross  Society  488-4S9 

Roberts,  James  A.                                                 292-294,  343,  344 

Rosebery,  Lord  5 

S 

Silver  Question,  The                                                    405,  439-465 

Spanish  War                                    232,  253,  262,  482,  486,  488,  493 

Stanford  University 

Lectures  at  1-184 

Founders'  Day  address  376 

States,  The  155-185 

Story,  Judge                                                 68,  69,  80,  121,  122,  152 

T 
Tariff,  The  384,  396-418,  435-439 

U 

Union  League  Club,  Chicago 

Address  Washington's  Birthday,  1898  331-357 

Address  Washington's  Birthday  at  banquet  479-481 

V 

Victoria,  Queen  256 

W 

Washington,  George                                         9,  14,  332,  333,  342 

Wealth,  obligations  of 

Address  Union  League  Club,  Chicago  331-357 

Y\Tilson,  James  81 

Winslow,  Edward  19 

World  Powers  230-244 


" 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

RENEWED  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  IMMEDIATE 
RECALL 


MW 1 4  1969 
MAY  1 4  RECD 


LIBRARY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  DAVIS 

Book  Slip-50m-12,'64(F772s4)458 


379624 

Harrison,  B« 

Views  of  an 
ex-President • 


E660 
H31 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


